Back
1998 Supreme(SC) 1204
1998(9) Supreme 171
Supreme Court of India
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
S. Saghir Ahmad & M. Srinivasan, JJ.
Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Boards & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Sh. Ganesh Rice and General Mills & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6081 of 1998
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 7980 of 1998)
Decided on 4-12-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : K.T.S. Tulsi, Sr. Advocate and Prem Malhotra, Advocate.
For the Respondents : M.K. Dua, Advocate.
Important Point
Compliance with Rule 30 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, in order to get exemption from payment of market fee, is not a mere technical formality, filing of Form LL is condition precedent to get exemption.
Headnote:Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962-Rules 30 and 31-Market fee-Exemption from-Conditions precedent-Market fee should have been paid already in a market area-Declaration in Form LL and certificate of payment must be filed within 20 days-Compliance of above not a mere technical formality.
Held : Under Rule 30, three conditions are required to be satisfied for the purpose of claiming exemption by a dealer:
A. The dealer should have paid the market fee already in a market area.
B. The dealer shall make a declaration and give certificate to the Committee in Form LL where the fee has already been paid.
C. Such Form shall be filed within 20 days of the date of bringing the agricultural produce within the notified market area.
Unless all the above conditions are fulfilled it is not possible for the Market Committee to accept a mere statement that market fee had already been paid and the dealer was not liable to pay it again. Compliance with the rule is not a mere technical formality. (Paras 5 & 6)
In the present case, first respondent did not admittedly file Form LL with the Market Committee. It filed Form M only after the prescribed time limit. Even in that Form, as pointed out already, Col. 7 was not filled up. In such circumstances the stand taken by the Market Committee that the first respondent was liable to pay market fee was correct. (Para 6)
Held, however, in the memo issued by the Market Committee on 18.3.97, it was not pointed out that the first respondent ought to file Form LL containing declaration and certificate. Nor was the attention of the first respondent drawn to Rule 30. It is also submitted by learned counsel that the market fee was actually paid when the produce was purchased. According to him all the relevant receipts for payment of market fee in the area are readily available with the first respondent. In the circumstances we are of the opinion that the first respondent’s right to claim exemption from payment of market fee in Karnal shall not be defeated as it is stated to have been paid already actually in the area where the produce was purchased. The first respondent is also willing to file the declaration and certificate in Form LL. Hence, we direct the first respondent to file the declaration and certificate in Form LL with the Marketing Committee, Karnal within a period of two weeks from this date and the latter shall on such filing of the declaration and certificate grant the exemption to the first respondent from payment of market fee if the other conditions in the rule are satisfied irrespective of the period of limitation prescribed in the rule. (Paras 7, 8 & 9)
Judgment
Srinivasan, J.-Leave granted.
2. The first respondent, a dealer under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) purchased paddy from areas outside the jurisdiction of the Market Committee, Karnal between 8.12.96 and 1.1.97 amounting to Rs. 5,94,630.35 for processing. It submitted a return in Form M under Rule 31 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) on 17.3.97 setting out the details of the purchases. Column in the form provides for stating whether fee was leviable and if not, why. In the return filed by the first respondent as aforesaid in Form M the said column was left blank. The Market Committee, Karnal issued Memo No. 241 dated 18.3.97 to the first respondent, pointing out the delay in filing the report and informing it that a fee of Rs. 11,892.60 was payable on the purchase and the same may be deposited within a week and in case of default action will be taken. On 27.3.97, another memo was issued along with a certified copy of rule 30(5) of the Rules, pointing out that the first respondent had not given necessary information and declaration in time and as such liable to pay the fee claimed already.
2. The first respondent sent a reply on 4.4.97 claiming exemption from payment on the ground that the fee had been paid at the place of purchase and it was not payable second time. The Market Committee sent notices on 8.4.97 and 28.4.97 rejecting the stand of the first respondent and reiterating that the relevant Rules were not complied with and the requisite forms were not filed. The Market Committee forwarded the papers to the Assistant Collector, Grade II, Karnal (the 4th petitioner herein) for recovery of the fee as arrears of land revenue and the latter issued notice dated 10.6.97 to the first respondent treating it as a ‘defaulter’.
3. The first respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court for quashing proceedings including the levy of market fee. The High Court proceeded on the footing that the first respondent had paid the fee at the place where the purchase was made and there was only a delay in complying with the Rules. The High Court held that mere delay will not enable the Market Committee to levy fee for second time even though it may be entitled to levy a penalty. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition holding that the levy of market fee was without jurisdiction. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred this appeal by Special Leave.
4. Rule 30 of the Rules provides that no market fee shall be levied on the sale or purchase of any agricultural produce in respect of which such fee is already paid in the notified market area in which the said produce was manufactured or extracted. Sub-rules (3) to (5) are relevant in this case. They read as follows:-
“(3) The dealer who claims exemption from the payment of market fee leviable on any agricultural produce manufactured or extracted from the agricultural produce in respect of which the market fee has already been paid in another notified market area, shall make declaration and give certificate to the committee in Form LL, where the fee has already been paid within twenty days of the day of bringing of agricultural produce within the notified market area. Form LL shall be prepared in quadruplicate form the booklets duly attested and issued by the Secretary of the Committee against the payment fixed by the Committee. It will be the duty of the dealer claiming exemption from the market fee under this sub-rule to send the original copy of Form LL to the Committee within whose market area the agricultural produce is brought. The second copy shall be sent to the office of the committee within whose market area such agricultural produce was bought, and the third and fourth copies shall be retained by the dealer-purchaser and the dealer-seller, respectively and the same shall be kept as a part of their accounts ma
