M/S Om Prakash Ashok Kumar Jain vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Held
The Court held that it was not inclined to issue any directions at the present stage. This decision was based on the fact that the petitioner had failed to provide any documentary evidence in their supplementary affidavit to demonstrate that any demand for payment of Mandi fee on packed items had actually been made from them. Consequently, the Court left it open for the petitioner to raise the issue of Mandi Shulk levy in the future, should any such demand be raised. The petition was disposed of on this basis, without delving into the merits of whether Mandi Shulk could be levied on packed food items under the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Om Prakash Ashok Kumar Jain, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to prevent respondent no. 2 from levying Mandi Shulk (market fee) on packed food items. The petitioner contended that Mandi Shulk cannot be demanded on packed food items, especially since they have already paid Goods and Services Tax (GST) on these items, which they claim to have purchased from manufacturers. The Court had previously granted time for the petitioner to file a supplementary affidavit to provide evidence of any such demand for Mandi fee on packed food items. However, the supplementary affidavit filed did not contain any documentary evidence to demonstrate that a demand for Mandi fee on packed items had been made from the petitioner.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondents can demand Mandi Shulk on packed food items, notwithstanding the petitioner having paid GST on such items purchased from manufacturers, as per the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that under the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, the respondents are precluded from demanding Mandi fee on packed food items, particularly when GST has already been paid on them. They sought a direction to prevent the levy of this fee and to decide their representation dated 4.4.2022. Respondent's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions made by the respondents. The Court noted the absence of documentary evidence from the petitioner to substantiate their claim of a demand being made.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21273 of 2022 Petitioner :- M/S Om Prakash Ashok Kumar Jain Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nikhil Chaturvedi,Laxmi Kant Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Kumar Yadav,Suresh C.
Dwivedi Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
The instant petition has been filed praying for a mandamus directing respondent no.2 not to levy Mandi Shulk on the petitioner's firm on packed food items, in respect of which, the petitioner firm claims to have already paid GST and for a direction to respondent no.2 to decide its representation dated 4.4.2022.
The case of the petitioner is that under the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, the respondents cannot demand Mandi fee on packed food items which the petitioner claims has been purchased from the manufacturers.
On 30.8.2022, the following order was passed:- "Counsel for the petitioner is granted time to file supplementary affidavit to place on record material which may go to show that any demand of Mandi fee is being made from the petitioner in respect of packed food items, with the petitioner claims, it has been purchasing from manufacturers.
List as fres
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.