Market fee is leviable both on rice and paddy as they are separately notified as agricultural produce in the Schedule appended to the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1960.

Headnote:
BIHAR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET ACT, 1960 - SECTION 2(A), 12, 27 - RICE AND PADDY - MARKET FEE - LEVY - INTERPRETATION - Held, market fee is leviable both on rice and paddy as they are separately notified as agricultural produce in the Schedule.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, owners of rice mills and holders of licenses under the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1960, challenged the orders of assessment passed by authorities under the Act, claiming that market fee was not payable on both paddy and rice. The petitioners contended that they had filed returns and purchased paddy outside the market area, on which no market fee was liable, and purchased paddy within the market area for which market fee had already been paid.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that market fee is leviable on both rice and paddy as they are separately notified as agricultural produce in the Schedule appended to the Act. The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Sreenivasa General Traders V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, which held that paddy and rice are two separate and distinct commercial commodities and that market fee is leviable on both the purchase of paddy by a rice miller from a producer and the purchase or sale of rice by a miller to a trader or by a trader to a trader.
Issues: Whether market fee is leviable both on rice and paddy.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the provisions of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1960, as amended by Act No. 60 of 1982, clearly provide for the levy of market fee on both rice and paddy. The Court also held that the Supreme Court decision in Sreenivasa General Traders V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh is binding on this Court and is applicable to the facts of the present case.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions in part, quashing the orders of assessment and notices of demand in certain cases where the assessment was done by the Special Officer along with the Secretary of the Market Committee. However, the Court held that the Market Committee was at liberty to pass a fresh order of assessment in accordance with law.

Judgment

S.B.Sinha, J.

1. All these cases involving common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. In all these cases the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order of assessment passed by the authorities under the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1960 as contained in Annexure 1 to each of the writ petition and the consequent demand as against the petitioners of each case pursuant to the said orders of assessment.

3. Bereft of all unnecessary details, the facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioners are owners of rice mills and are holders of licences granted to them under the provisions of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1960 (hereinafter to be referred to as the said Act) and the rules framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules).

4. In all these cases the periods of assessment appear to be for the years 1981-82 and 1982-83. According to the petitioners they have been filing returns in terms of the provisions of the said Act and the said Rules within the prescribed time. The petitioners contend that they have purchased paddy outside the market area on which no Market Fee was liable to be paid as also have purchased paddy within the market area for which market fee has already been paid. It is art admitted fact that the petitioners in the respective rice mills produces rice from the paddy.

5. According to the petitioners, the respondent-Market Committee has been demanding market fee from the petitioners both on paddy as well as on rice which, according to them, is not permissible in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Chandra Kailash Kumar and Co. V/s. State of U.P. reported in -- and the decision of this Court in Rice and Flour Mills and Anr. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. being C.W.J.C No. 3338 of 1980 disposed of on 22-1-1981 reported in 1981 Bihar Revenue and Labour Journal page 106.

6. In some of the writ petitions namely, C.W.J.C Nos. 317/83, 722/83, 791/83, 1344/34, 1362/84, 1358/84 and 2185/84, an additional point has been taken i.e although the said Market Committee was at the relevant time under the management and control of the Special Officer appointed in terms of the provisions of the said Act, the orders of assessment have been passed by the said Special Officer along with the Secretary of the Market Committee.

7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the market committee in each writ petition. In the said counter affidavit it has, inter alia, been contended that the Agricultural Produce Market Committee at Mokha was dissolved by virtue of a notification dated 12th June, 1982 issued by the State of Bihar in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Sub-section (5) of Section 9 of the said Act as a result whereof the said market committee was dissolved and the powers and functions thereof vested in the authorised officer mentioned therein namely, Sri Kailash Ram, Sub-divisional Officer, Sasaram. A copy of the said notification is contained in Annexure A to the said counter affidavit. It has further been brought on record in some cases that a regular market committee had been functioning with effect from 5-5-1983 where for a notification of the said date has been filed with the counter affidavit and marked as Annexure C from a perusal whereof it appears that regular market committee was constituted in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and the rules farmed thereunder.

8. According to the respondent, in that view of the matter, the power of the assessment sub-committee as also the power of the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman vested in the said authority. The respondents have further pointed out that in terms of the provisions of the said Act the petitioners are liable to pay market fee on the transaction of sale and purchase of both paddy and rice. The respondents have further contended that under the provisions of the said Act the petitioners being the rice mill o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1988 Supreme(Pat) 368

Market fee is leviable both on rice and paddy as they are separately notified as agricultural produce in the Schedule appended to the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1960.

Cases Referred (3)