1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

W. P. No.100828/2013 (APMC)

BETWEEN:

M/S. BHOSALE BIO NEEM

A PARTERSHIP FILM BY ITS

MANAGING PARTNER

R/N. BHOSALE S/O N.B. BHOSALE,

AGE:44 YRS, OCC. BUSINESS,

R/O MUDDEBIHAL

DIST.BIJAPUR-586101.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI N. S. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

AND :

1 .

THE DIRECTOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE

MARKET COMMITTEE (APMC)

BANGALORE - 560001.

2 .

THE SECRETARY

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE

MARKETING COMMITTEE (APMC)

MUDDEBIHAL DIST. BIJAPUR-586101.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN BASAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

SMT. ANURADHA M. DESAI, G.A. FOR R1)

2

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

LETTER DATED 08.11.2012 ISSUED BY SECOND RESPONDENT

ALONG WITH LEGAL OPINION PRODUCED AT ANNEXURES-H &

H1 AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE

FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

Learned Government Advocate is directed to accept

notice for respondent No.1.

2.

Sri Mallikarjun C. Basareddy, learned counsel

accepts notice for respondent No.2.

3.

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has

challenged the order of respondent No.2 imposing cess on

neem fruits.

4.

The petitioner claimed that it is extracting

solvent from neem karanja and non-edible oil from neem

seeds. The petitioner used to purchase neem fruits from

the local market and used to bring it into the market yard.

The respondent No.2 imposed cess of 1.5% of the total

3

value of the purchase made by the petitioner. From the

year 2003-04 to 2007-08 the petitioner had paid a sum of

Rs.3,49,416/- towards the cess. It is the case of petitioner

that the Government of Karnataka vide Notification dated

06.07.2001

(Annexure-A)

has

declared

certain

commodities / fruits etc., which are exigible to market fee

by respondent No.2 herein. The said Notification was only

in respect of neem seeds and not in respect of neem fruits.

When the petitioner came to know that neem fruit was not

exigible to cess, he filed a representation requesting to

refund the market fee/cess which was received by the

respondents.

The

said

representations

were

not

considered by the respondents which compelled the

petitioner to file W.P. No.81037/2010. This Court allowed

the Writ Petition and directed the respondents to consider

the representation in the light of the Notification dated

06.07.2001. The respondent No.2 after considering the

representations passed the impugned order holding that

the Notification dated 06.07.2001 though related to neem

seeds but since the neem fruit purchased by the petitioner

4

included the neem seeds, such purchase was exigible to

cess and thus rejected the representation of the petitioner

for refund.

5.

It is this order which is challenged by the

learned counsel for the petitioner.

6.

The learned counsel reiterated his contention

that the Notification has to be construed strictly since

neem fruit was not included and what was included is only

neem seeds , and therefore, the same cannot be subjected

to cess or market fee.

7.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent

No.2 submitted that neem fruit includes the seed , and

therefore, cess was leviable and the petitioner was liable

for payment of market fee on the value of the purchases

made.

8.

On considering the submissions made by

learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the

Notification dated 06.07.2001 included neem seed. It is

5

common knowledge that neem fruit includes the neem

seed and it is not as if the petitioner would be purchasing

the neem fruit after separating the neem seeds.

9.

It is the case of petitioner that whatever that is

purchased included not only the outer cover but also the

seed. Therefore, in view of the Notification dated

06.07.200