KRISHNA TRADING COMPANY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that falls for our consideration, in this case, is whether multi-point levy is permissible on the same item of agricultural produce though the fee was collected by the same Marketing Committee on the first transaction of sale. The answer to this question depends on the interpretation of Section 65 of Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). When the matter came up before V. K. Singhal, J. , the learned Judge felt it necessary to have an authoritative pronouncement from the Full Bench. The learned Judge apparently felt that there is a conflict between two division Bench decisions of this Court viz. , Rajasekhariah v Tiptur Agricultural Produce Market Committee and Another and Sri Gangadhara rice Mills v State of Karnataka and Another. In the first case it was held that there cannot be levy on every successive sale of the same agricultural produce in the same market area. In the second case, it was held that market fee could be levied once at the stage of paddy and later at the stage when the same paddy is converted into rice. In the case on hand, there was no such conversion of agricultural produce into different form. Hence, there is no conflict between the two decisions where there is none. When the decision in Rajasekhariah's case, supra, was not doubted, the learned Single Judge ought to have followed that decision and disposed of the writ petition. However, as the matter has already been referred to the Full Bench on the papers being placed before the learned Chief Justice, we consider it proper to decide the question, more so when the learned Counsel, taking advantage of this reference to Full bench, has questioned the correctness of decision in Rajasekhariah's case, supra.

(2.) COMING to the facts of the case, the writ petitioner, which is a trading firm having its business place in the notified market area of puttur in Mangalore District, purchased raw cashewnut and pepper from the agriculturists-sellers during the year 1992-93 and paid market fee at one per cent as the buyer of the said commodities. The petitioner sold the same raw cashewnut and pepper at the price of Rs. 1,39,56,404/-and Rs. 1,49,007/- respectively. By a notice dated 29-9-199 (Annexure-E), the petitioner was called upon to pay the sum of Rs. 1,41,054/- on the same commodities which were sold to other traders. Penalty of 30% was also proposed to be levied for non-payment of market fee. On behalf of the petitioner an elaborate reply was sent denying the liability. But the third respondent (Secretary, APMC, Puttur) by his impugned order dated 20-11-1993 determined the market fee at Rs. 1,41,054/- and also levied the penalty at three times the market fee. Thus, an amount of Rs. 5,64,216/- was demanded from the petitioner. That led to the filing of the present writ petition. This Court granted stay subject to the condition of payment of market fee demanded i. e. , Rs. 1,41,054/ -. A number of contentions were raised in the writ petition, one of which is that in the absence of a market yard no liability can be fastened on the trader to pay the market fee. However, the arguments are restricted to the only contention that there cannot be a multi-point levy of market fee and, therefore, the impugned order dated 20-11-1993 (Annexure-H) is bad in law.

(3.) SECTION 65 (2), the charging section omitting unnecessary words reads as follows: