Back
2017 Supreme(SC) 576
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.
M/s. Arihant Udhyog - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 8277, 8278, 8280, 8282, 8281, 8283, 8279, 8284, 8285, 8286, 8293, 8287, 8290, 8294, 8288, 8292, 8291, 8295, 8289, 8296, 8299, 8300, 8301, 8302, 8304, 8297, 8298, 8303, 8305, 8306, 8307 & 8308 of 2017 (Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos. 31709, 29508, 30353, 31186, 31217, 31372, 31712, 34764, 34770, 36160, 37780, 38311, 38312, 38313, 38314, 38315, 38316, 38317, 38318, 38319, 38533, 38567 of 2012; 192, 256, 1133, 1567, 1570, 9980, 10341, 10361 of 2013; 20464 of 2014 & 16245 of 2015)
Decided On : 09-06-2017
IMPORTANT POINT
In case the title and ownership of the goods passes to buyer on delivery in Market place, market fee would be payable by it.
Where title and ownership of goods remains with seller till delivery, purchase will be complete only at the place of delivery.
It is not permissible to decide a case without going into documents therein.
Headnote:(a) Section 14, 17 and Rule 58 – All agricultural produce, bought and sold by licensees in market area, liable for payment of market fee – Goods purchased outside market area/ State but delivered therein – In view of the title and ownership of the goods passing to Arihant Udhyog on delivery in Market place, held, market fee is payable by it. (Para 6, 22)
(2016) 3 SCC 601; (1997) 5 SCC 516; (2014) 3 SCC 732 – Referred
(b) Sale of Goods Act, 1930 – Sections 4, 19, 20, 21 and 22 – Title in goods is transferred only on sale of goods – Fructification of sale and passing of property to be ascertained from the intention of the parties in terms of the contract – In absence of such intention and unconditional contract for sale of specific goods, property in goods passes where the goods are in a deliverable state – Instantly, in case of Arihant Udhyog, title and ownership of goods remaining with seller till delivery – Title and ownership passes to Arihant Udhyog on delivery in Market place. (Para 20)
(c) Constitution of India – Article 226 – High Court dismissing writ petition simply following its earlier decision in other cases without going into documents of the case – Not permissible – Matter remitted. (Para 24)
Facts of the case:
The singular question of law, common in all these appeals, that arises for consideration is as to whether the appellants herein who are purchasing the material which is admittedly ‘agricultural produce’ and bringing the same to the area known as ‘market area’ and covered by the provisions of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 and Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1963 are liable to pay the market fee on the said produce. Admittedly, the legal position is that if the agricultural produce is brought to the market area and sold there, market fee is payable thereon. The question in these appeals is as to whether the goods were bought and sold at the market place. The appellants maintain that the sale of the agricultural produce took place and was concluded outside the State of Rajasthan and before these goods were brought to the market area, they had already become the owner thereof by virtue of the sale outside the State and, hence, are not liable to pay any market fee. On the other hand, the respondents, including the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (respondent No.3), argue that the sale was fructified only after the goods were brought to the market area and the ownership in the goods passed from the seller to the appellants herein at that time when the goods were delivered in the market area. On this reckoning, the respondents claim that the market fee is payable by the appellants.
High Court decided the 15 writ petitions in favour of respondent no.3.
Finding of the Court:
Appeal of Arihant Udhyog dismissed. All other appeals remitted back to High Court.
Result: Appeal of Arihant Udhyog dismissed. All other appeals remitted back to High Court.
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Sikri, J.
Leave granted.
2. Singular question of law, which is common in all these appeals, that arises for consideration is as to whether the appellants herein who are purchasing the material which is admittedly ‘agricultural produce’ and bringing the same to the area known as ‘market area’ and covered by the provisions of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1963 (for short, the ‘Rules’) are liable to pay the market fee on the said produce. Admittedly, the legal position is that if the agricultural produce is brought to the market area and sold there, market fee is payable thereon. The question in these appeals is as to whether the goods were bought and sold at the market place. The appellants maintain that the sale of the agricultural produce took place and was concluded outside the State of Rajasthan and before these goods were brought to the market area, they had already become the owner thereof by virtue of the sale outside the State and, hence, are not liable to pay any market fee. On the other hand, the respondents, including the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (respondent No.3), argue that the sale was fructified only after the goods were brought to the market area and the ownership in the goods passed from the seller to the appellants herein at that time when the goods were delivered in the market area. On this reckoning, the respondents claim that the market fee is payable by the appellants.
3. The appellants had challenged the action of respondent No.3 in demanding the market fee payable under the Rules by filing writ petitions in the High Court. Fifteen such writ petitions were decided by the High Court of Rajasthan vide common judgment dated May 14, 2012 accepting the stand taken by respondent No.3 and it dismissed the writ petitions as bereft of any merit. The writ petitions of other appellants were dismissed by various orders following the said judgment. In view thereof, it would be appropriate to discuss the facts and the reasons given by the High Court for arriving at the said conclusion.
4. Before the High Court, lead case was that of Arihant Udyog, which is the position herein as well. Arihant Udyog is a small-scale industry registered as such with the Government of Rajasthan. According to Arihant Udyog, since it is purchasing the agricultural produce from outside the State for industrial purpose, it is not liable to pay any market fee. It is, however, a licensee under the Act, obtained by it under Section 14 thereof. Likewise, all other appellants are also licensees.
5. Some relevant provisions of the Act, Rules and the Administrative Circulars require a mention at this stage, which read as follows:
“Section 14 of the Act
Power of market committee to issue Licence.–
(1) Where a market is established under the provisions of this Act, the market committee may issue and renew Licence, in accordance with the rules and bye-laws, to traders, brokers, weighmen, measurers, processors, surveyors, warehousemen or other persons to operate in the market on payment of the prescribed fees.
(2) The market committee may also grant Licence,-
(a) for direct purchase from the agriculturists for the following purposes, namely:-
(i) to processor for processing;
(ii) to exporters for export of agricultural produce;
(iii) for trade of agricultural produce of particular specification; and
(iv) for grading, packing and transacting in other way by value addition of agricultural produce:
“Provided that no sale or purchase shall be permitted under this clause within the market proper except for the purposes specified in sub clause(i) and (iv).”
Section 17 of the Act
Power to collect market fees.–
The market committee shall collect market fees from the Licences in the prescribed manner on agricultural produce bought or sold by them in the market area at such rate as may be specified by the State Government, by notification in the
