Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
G. P. Singh and G. P. Sen, JJ.
ROOPACHAND PHOOLCHAND
Versus
KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI RAIPUR M P
Decided On : Jan 03,1975
If goods were brought for bona fide consumption within the market area and not for sale, a cer1ificate bas to be furnished to the market committee in Form VI in accordance with Rule 56 (4). No such certificate was furnished in either of these casts. In view of these circumstances, it is reasonable to continuation that the petitioner's contention that the goods were actually used in their fact ones is not correct and it is more reasonable to hold that the goods were sold as contended by the Committee. [Para 6
(2) Constitution of India-Art. 265-words 'tax' 'levy' and 'collection’-import of-scope of the Article-machinery for assessmmt. Article 265 of the Constitution provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. The word "tax" in this article includes any impost such as duties, cesses or fees. AIR 1962 SC 1517 relied on.
The words "levy" and "collection" in the Article are also used in a comprehensive sense to cover all steps beginning from imposition and ending with recovery. The word "levy" thus covers not merely imposition but also assessment. A taxing statute has, therefore, to provide not only for the imposition of the tax or fees with which it deals but also for its assessment and collection. Article 265, however, does not lay down that any detailed machinery should be provided for assessment. The procedural provisions for assessment must, of necessity, depend upon the nature of the tax or fees which is sought to be imposed by the statute. [Para 12
(3) Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 (M.P.)-Ss. 20 and 42-Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1952 (MP)-Rr. 56 and 57-Market Committee can make assessment in a quasi Judicial manner.
The authority to levy and collect fees as conferred by Rule 56 and section 20 of the Act necessarily implies that the Committee can make assessment of the fees in a quasi-judicial manner if the demand made by it is disputed by the assessee. Bye-law 84, which makes it obligatory on every licensee to produce his books of account before the Committee and which authorises the Committee to scrutinize the books so produced, also goes to show that the Committee can bold an inquiry to find out the amount of market-fees recoverable by it. [Para 12
( 1. ) THIS order shall also dispose of Misc. Petitions Nos. 838 of 1972 and 162 of 1973.
( 2. ) THE petitioners in Misc. Petition No. 802 of 1972 carry on the business of manufacturing oil oil oil-cakes at Raipur. The Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Raipur, which is respondent No. 1 in all the three petitions, has been constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960. The Committee by its notice dated 14th February 1970 informed the petitioners that they had brought within the market area agricultural produce (oil seeds) as mentioned in the accompanying statement for purposes of sale for the period from 23rd November 1965 to 15th December 1968, and that the petitioners were liable to pay market-fees amounting to Rs. 6,384. 94. The petitioners were asked to produce accounts for scrutiny of the Committee, in case they disputed the correctness of the enclosed statement. The petitioners did not give any reply to this notice. The Committee then assessed Rs. 6,384. 94 as the market-fees recoverable from the petitioners and requested the Tahsildar raipur, to recover the same as arrears of land revenue. The petitioners then filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the recovery.
( 3. ) IN Misc. Petition No. 838 of 1972 the facts are that the petitioners are manufacturers of oil and oil-cakes and also carry on the business of rice-milling. The petitioners were served with a notice by the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Raipur, on 9th October 1970 to the effect that they were liable to pay Rs. 22,366. 98 as market-fees on paddy and oil seeds brought by them for sale within the market area for the period from 25th November 1965 to 27th April 1970. A statement of account was enclosed along with the notice and the petitioners were required to produce their books of account for scrutiny, in case they disputed the accounts sent by the Committee. The petitioners did not reply to this notice. The Committee then started the recovery of the said amount of market-fees through the Tahsildar, Raipur. The petitioners then filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the recovery.
( 4. ) IN Misc. Petition No. 162 of 1973 the petitioners are wholesale dealers in Kirana. They were served with a notice by the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, raipur, on 30th May 1970 demanding Rs. 12,334. 06 as market-fees on the agricultural produce brought by them for sale within the market area for the period from 2nd December 1965 to 22nd September 1969. An account on the basis of which the market fees were assessed was enclosed along with the notice and the petitioners were asked to produce their accounts, in case they disputed the accounts sent by the Committee. No reply to this notice was given. The Committee started recovery of the said amount through the tahsildar, Raipur, on which this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed to challenge the recovery.
( 5. ) THE petitioners in Misc. Petitions Nos. 802 and 838 of 1972 hold licences from the Committee for their processing or pressing factories under rule 72 of the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1962. In accordance with the terms of their licences, they are bound to produce their registers and books of account before the committee for purposes of scrutiny. The petitioners in Misc. Petition No. 162 of 1973 are licensed as traders under rule 69. They are also bound to produce their books of account for examination, if so required by the Committee, under the terms of their licence.
( 6. ) THE petitioners in Misc. Petitions 802 and 838 of 1972 first contended that the goods brought by them within the market area were all for consumption in the processing or pressing factories owned by them and that the goods were not sold. The respondent Samiti controverted this allegation of the petitioners. According to the affidavit filed on behalf of the Committee, the goods in respect of which market-fees were being requ
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
