Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Supreme Court Judgments

Latest Supreme Court of India Judgments 2023


RSS Feed img

Roshan Lal Vs. Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad [1993] INSC 350 (13 September 1993)

Ramaswamy, K. Ramaswamy, K. Singh N.P. (J)

CITATION: 1994 SCC Supl. (2) 589




1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is owning a rice mill at Bilaspur. The mill and the yard are situated in the territorial area of two market committees, namely, Bilaspur Mandi Samiti and Rudrapur Mandi Samiti. In the counter-affidavits filed by the Market Committee, Rudrapur, it is stated that the appellant has been purchasing paddy from the ryots or commission agents within the notified area of the Market Committee, Rudrapur and bringing to the mill situated in the notified area of the Market Committee, Bilaspur. It is the contention of the appellant that he has been paying the market fee to the Marketing Committee, Rudrapur for the paddy and therefore the Market Committee, Bilaspur cannot levy any market fee on the paddy. Section 17(iii)(b) of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (for short the Act) provides thus:

"The market committee shall, for the purpose of this Act have the power to levy and collect- (b)market fee, which shall be payable on transactions of sale of specified agricultural produce in the market area at such rates, being not less than one per centum and not more than one and half per centum of the price of the agricultural produce so sold, as the State Government may specify by notification, and such fee shall be realised in the manner specified therein." 3.There is also a deeming provision that if an agricultural produce had been brought and converted into another notified agricultural produce, it must be deemed to have been purchased within the notified area of conversion.

In view of the fact that the appellant has been purchasing paddy from the notified area of Market Committee, Rudrapur, the transaction of purchase and sale of the paddy is complete within the notified area of the Market Committee, Rudrapur. Thereby he is liable 'Lo pay the market fee on paddy to Market Committee, Rudrapur at the rate specified therein. Equally, when he brought the paddy and converted it into rice within the notified area of the Market Committee, Bilaspur, the rice being an independent notified agricultural produce and when the sale takes place within that notified area, he is liable to pay the market fee on the rice as well to the Market Committee, Bilaspur since it has taken place in a different notified market area, Bilaspur. It is stated in the counter-affidavit of the Market Committee, Bilaspur that 68% of the paddy is taken to have been husked as rice out of the total quantity of 100% paddy purchased by the appellant for the purpose of levy of market fee on rice. In other words out of 100 quintals of paddy dehusked, 68 quintals of rice is the new notified product i.e. rice which is exigible to market fee. This percentage is perfectly reasonable. The appellant is liable to pay market fee on rice when the rice was sold within the notified market area of Bilaspur. The Market Committee, Bilaspur would work out the total market fee payable by the appellant on the returns submitted by the appellant and thereon the appellant shall pay the appropriate market fee on rice within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of the demand. The notice of demand dated February 19, 1991 stands suspended till that date.

4.The appeal is accordingly disposed of with the above clarifications. No costs.


Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys