SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 720

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
T. MADHAVI DEVI, J. 
M/s Kavitha Paraboiled Rice Industries - Appellant 
Vs.
The State of Telangana - Respondent 
I.A.No.2 of 2024 In W.P.No.13907 of 2024, Writ Petition No.13907 of 2024, I.A.No.2 of 2024 In W.P.No.13909 of 2024, Writ Petition No.13909 of 2024, I.A.No.2 of 2024 In W.P.No.13914 of 2024, Writ Petition No.13914 of 2024, I.A.No.2 of 2024 In W.P.No.13915 of 2024, Writ Petition No.13915 of 2024, I.A.No.2 of 2024 In W.P.No.13946 of 2024, Writ Petition No.13946 of 2024, I.A.No.2 of 2024 In W.P.No.13968 of 2024, Writ Petition No.13968 of 2024, I.A.No.4 of 2024 In W.P.No.17444 of 2024, Writ Petition No.17444 of 2024 And Writ Petition No.17954 of 2024 
Decided On : 21-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : V V N NARAYANA RAO
For the Respondent: GP FOR AGRICULTURE

The court held that assessments made after the statutory period and without following proper procedures violate principles of natural justice and jurisdiction under the Telangana Agricultural Produce & Live Stock Markets Act.

Headnote:(A) Telangana (Agricultural Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966 - Sections 12(1), 12

(B), 12-E, and 12-F - Writ petitions challenging market fee assessments and renewal of trade licenses - Petitioners alleged illegal assessment of market fees on rice/paddy - Court held that assessments made after expiry of three years are without jurisdiction and violate natural justice principles - Ordered re-assessment by the authority. (Paras 3, 13-17)

(B) Legal principles - Writ jurisdiction is maintainable when assessing authority fails to follow procedures, especially principles of natural justice. (Paras 15, 16)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged market fee assessments for 2020-2021 to 2022-2023 and sought renewal of trade licenses, disputing the legality of assessed fees and jurisdiction of the authorities.

Findings of Court:
The assessments were found without jurisdiction as they were made after stipulated periods without issuing notices, violating principles of natural justice.

Issues: The legality of assessment and the jurisdiction of the authorities in delaying notice for fees.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that correct procedures must be followed before assessments, asserting the importance of giving traders adequate opportunity to present their documentation.

Result: Writ petitions allowed; assessments set aside with directions for re-assessment and consideration of license renewals.

Table of Content
1. challenging market fees and trade license renewal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding market fee assessments and license renewals. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. court's analysis on jurisdiction and principles of natural justice. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. assessment orders set aside for not following due process. (Para 17)
5. final orders on writ petitions and costs. (Para 18 , 19)

ORDER :

T. Madhavi Devi, J.

In these Writ Petitions, the petitioners are challenging the assessment of the market fees payable by the petitioners on purchase of rice/paddy from outside the State for the assessment years 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, without power, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Telangana (Agricultural Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966 and the Rules made thereunder and also challenging the order dt.28.06.2024 rejecting the renewal of trade licences of the petitioners as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to renew the trade licences of the petitioners for a further period of three years from 2024 to 2027 and to pass such other order or orders.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petitions are that the petitioners are licence holders who are dealing with agricultural produce and claim to be paying necessary market fees by producing relevant records. It is submitted that the petitioners have been purchasing rice from outside the State of Telangana, i.e., Bihar and Uttar Pradesh and the 3rd respondent in W.P.Nos.13907, 13909, 13914, 13915, 13946 and 13968 of 2024 has been exempting the petitioners from payment of market fees on purchase of rice/paddy from outside the State and export to other countries in terms of G.O.Ms.No.96, Agriculture and Cooperation (AM-IV) Department, dt.19.10.2013 and also in terms of the Circular No. Projects/38/2005 dt.28.11.2013 of the 2nd respondent.

3. It is submitted that, for the first time, the 3rd respondent in W.P.Nos.13907, 13909, 13914, 13915, 13946 and 13968 of 2024 has assessed the market fees on the rice purchased from other States for the assessment years 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 contrary to the instructions of the 1st and 2nd respondents. It is submitted that Sections 12(1) and 12(B) of the Telangana (Agricultural Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966 (for short, “the Act”) provide for charging and levying of market fee on the notified agricultural produce and that the 3rd respondent in W.P.Nos.13907, 13909, 13914, 13915, 13946 and 13968 of 2024 shall assess the market fee only on purchase or sale of the agricultural produce in the notified market area. It is submitted that under Section 12-B of the Act, only if the return submitted by the assessee is incorrect or incomplete, the assessing authority shall, after giving the trader an opportunity of providing the correctness and completeness of the return submitted by him and after making such enquiry as it considers necessary, assess to the best of its judgment, the amount of market fee, due from the trader. It is submitted that the assessment under this Section shall, however, be made only within a period of three (3) years from the expiry of the years to which the assessment relates. It is submitted that in this case, the assessments are made for the year 2020-2021 in the year 2024 i.e., after expiry of three (3) years to which the assessments relate and further that no documents were called for from the petitioners before making the assessment. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the assessment is not only without jurisdiction but also is in violation of the principles of natural justice and the guidelines issued therefor.

4. At the time of admission of the Writ Petitions, this Court had directed the respondents not to take any coercive steps for implementation of the impugned assessment orders.

5. The 3rd respondent in W.P.Nos.13907, 13909, 13914

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top