BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
P. Regin – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
W.P. (MD) No. 22130 of 2021, W.M.P. (MD) Nos. 18718, 18719 of 2021
Decided On : 30-11-2023
MARKET FEE - LEVY ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE - Tamil Nadu Agricultural Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987, Section 24 - The court analyzed the provisions of Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987, which governs the levy of market fees on agricultural produce. It highlighted that market fees can only be levied when agricultural produce is bought or sold in a notified market area. The court interpreted the proviso to Section 24, which exempts agricultural produce brought into a notified market area solely for processing or export from market fees, unless not processed or exported within 30 days. The court emphasized the need for the Market Committee to conduct inquiries to determine the nature of the agricultural produce and the legitimacy of the fee collection.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a proprietor involved in importing raw cashew nuts, challenged the collection of a 1% market fee on imported cashew nuts by the respondents, claiming it was unauthorized as the produce was not meant for sale in the notified market area but for processing and export.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the collection of market fees was unjustified if the agricultural produce was indeed brought in solely for processing or export. It directed the Market Committee to conduct inquiries to ascertain the nature of the agricultural produce and the legitimacy of the fee collection.
Issues: Whether the market fee can be levied on agricultural produce imported for processing and export, and whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the fees collected.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under Section 24 of the Act, market fees cannot be levied on agricultural produce brought into a notified market area solely for processing or export, unless it is not processed or exported within 30 days, creating a presumption of sale in the market area.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was disposed of with directions for the Market Committee to conduct inquiries regarding the nature of the agricultural produce and to refund the market fees if the petitioner could establish that the produce was meant for processing and export.
ORDER :
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 4 and 5 to forbear from levying 1% market fee on the cashew nuts imported by the petitioner from foreign countries, and further direct the said respondents to refund forthwith the amount unauthorisedly collected to a tune of Rs. 16,00,178/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs One Hundred and Seventy Eight only).
1. This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the fourth and fifth respondents from levying 1% market fee on the cashew nuts imported by the petitioner from the foreign countries and for a further direction to the respondents to refund the sum of Rs. 16,00,178/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs One Hundred and Seventy Eight only), that was collected from the petitioner towards the market fee.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the Proprietor of an Agency, which is involved in the business of importing raw cashew nuts from other Countries, which is processed in the Factory and the processed cashew nuts are sold across India. The petitioner is also the Managing Director of another Company, which is involved in the same business.
3. The further case of the petitioner is that the cashew nut is an agricultural produce, which is notified under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
4. The market fee can be levied under the Act only when the agricultural produce is bought or sold in the notified market area. The grievance of the petitioner is that the agricultural produce is imported by the petitioner and it is processed and thereafter, it is exported to the Foreign Countries and therefore, the petitioner is not liable to pay the market fees for the cashew nuts imported from the Foreign Countries. However, the fourth respondent was unauthorizedly collecting the market fee from the petitioner, by intercepting the vehicle every time and in the said process, the sum of Rs. 16,00,178/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs One Hundred and Seventy Eight only) was collected from the petitioner during various times from the years 2015 to 2021. It is under these circumstances, the present Writ Petition has been filed before this Court to forbear the fourth and fifth respondents from levying market fees and for refund of the market fee that was unauthorizedly collected from the petitioner.
5. The fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The fourth respondent has taken a stand that the petitioner was involved in sale of cashew nuts in the notified market area and therefore, the market fee was levied from the petitioner. Therefore, the fourth respondent has justified the collection of the market fee from the petitioner and has sought for the dismissal of this Writ Petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
7. On carefully going through the Scheme of the Act, the levy of fees by the Market Committee is dealt with under Section 24 of the Act. In other words, Section 24 is the charging Section, which entitles the Market Committee to levy the fees. In order to justify the levy of fees by the Market Committee, the following conditions must be satisfied:
“(i) The agricultural produce must form part of the schedule as defined under Section 2 (1) of the Act.
(ii) The agricultural produce must be marketed in a declared notified area, which is dealt with under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.
(iii) In the notified area, the Government should issue a Notification and identify the notified market area for the purposes of the Act.
(iv) The agricultural produce must be bought or sold in the notified market area and in which event, the Market Committee established under Section 5 of the Act, is entitled to levy a fee of 1%.”
8. In the instant case, the cashew nuts in all forms is an agricultural produce that comes within the schedule. Kanyakumari District is a notified area as per G.O. (Ms) No. 777, Food and Agriculture, dated 09.03.1964.
APMC Yashwanthpura, through its Secretary vs. Selva Foods through its Managing Director
Gujarat Ambuja Exports Limited and Another vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others
AI
Market fees under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987, cannot be levied on agricultural produce imported for processing or export unless it is not processed or exported withi....
(1) It is obligation of importer to realise market fee from purchaser and pay the same to Market Committee.(2) It is sale within market area that attracts levy of market fee and not first purchase th....
Market fees can only be levied if agricultural produce is sold or purchased within the notified market area, as per Section 12(1) of the A.P. Markets Act.
Industrial concerns are not liable to pay market fees on agricultural produce brought into the market area for processing and manufacturing under section 28 of the Act, 1963, provided that they have ....
The burden of proof lies with parties claiming exemption from market fees, necessitating sufficient evidence of transactions occurring outside designated market areas.
Guidelines for Price Support Scheme – guidelines issued by the Government of India to refuse to comply with its obligation to pay the market fees to the petitioner
Market Committees have the implied authority to levy and assess fees under the M.P. Agricultural Produce Markets Act despite the absence of explicit procedural rules.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.