V. RAJAGOPALA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, a licensed dealer in notified commoditions like Coriander seeds, Groundnut etc. , under the A. P. Agricultural (Produce and Livestock) markets Act, 1966 (for short, the Act ), challenges, in this Writ Petition, the levy of market fee and the best judgment assessment proceedings dated 31-12-1990 for the years 1981-82 to 1987-88.

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner, in short, is that, in fact, no Market Yard was established at Guntakal, in spite of Government issuing a G. O. under sections 3 and 4 of the Act establishing a Market Yard, hence the petitioner was transacting the sales in his village. In the absence of Market Yard it cannot be said that any services have been rendered by the Market Committee and in fact no facilities have been provided by the Market Committee to the traders. Section 12 of the Act empowers a Market Committee to levy market fee only in case the Government established a Market Yard providing adequate facilities for sales or purchases, to the traders, in a market area. Hence no levy of market fee would arise and the impugned assessment is illegal.

( 3 ) THE 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit denying the allegation that there was no Market Yard at Guntakal. It was specifically averred that in pursuance of a notification issued by the Government in G. O. Ms. NO. 1311, dt 11-12-1973, the Market Yards have been established in Guntakal and Gooti and the notified market area was specified as extending a radius of 16 km. , around the office of Guntakal Municipality, within the notified area of agricultural Market Yard, Guntakal. Subsequently an amendment to the notification dt. 20-9-1973 has been issued prescribing the area mentioned therein as Market Area of the Guntakal Market Yard. The allegation that no facilities have been provided by the Market Committee for the traders was also denied and it was stated that the Market Committee has spent about Rs. 45 lakhs for providing facilities in the new Market Yards and about Rs. 2,26,000/- for old market Yard at Guntakal. Thus, the petitioner was liable to pay market fee.

( 4 ) THE contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are three-fold: (I) The Act underwent drastic amendments in the year 1987 by A. P. Agricultural (Produce and Livestock) Markets (Amendment) Act, 1987, (Act, 4 of 1987), (for short, the Amendment Act ), which came into effect w. e. f. , 4-2-1987 by which, among other provisions, Ss. 12-A to 12-C have been inserted in the parent Act prescribing the procedure for submission of returns relating to the turnover of the traders and making best judgment assessment of the market fee due from the traders. The parent Act has received the assent of the President of India on 18-11-1966 and thereafter it was published in A. P. Gazette. However, the Amendment Act has not received the assent of the president of India, but was assented to by the Governor of A. P. on 4-2-1987. Hence the Amendment Act is inoperative, unenforceble and void. Consequently the impugned assessment made in accordance with Ss. 12-A and 12-B of the Act is illegal, (II) The Government has not established any Market Yard at Guntakal, providing adequate facilities to the traders, within the meaning of sec. 4 (3) (a) of the Act. Hence the levy of market fee u/sec. 12 of the act is not permissible. (III) The impugned assessment proceedings are barred by limitation prescribed u/s. 12-B (1), which prescribes a period of 3 years from the expiry of the year to which assessment is levied.

( 5 ) THE second contention can be disposed of first, conveniently, in the light of the facts stated supra. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no Market Yard at Guntakal is controverted by the Standing counsel for the Maket Committee and in support of his submission, he took us into the averments made in the counter affidavit. In view of the clear and categorical averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document