NARENDRA KUMAR KANTILAL GANDHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 21/12/2009 passed by Revisional Authority - respondent No.1 herein in Revision Application No.184 of 2009 as well as decision of the respondent Market Committee dated 25/09/2009 calling upon the petitioner to pay market cess/fees. It is also further prayed to restrain the respondent market committee from taking any illegal action against petitioner for unpaid amount of market cess for the period 2003-04 and 2004-05.

(2.) It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is a sole proprietor and trader dealing in the trading activities of cereals and pulses, etc. in the area of respondent market committee. According to the petitioner, he purchases the said regulatory products from the wholesale dealers and most of the purchases are made from outside the area of market committee. That the said goods are sold to the traders in the market area. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that despite the fact that the petitioner was not liable to pay the market cess/fees on the sale to the traders outside the market area, the petitioner was served with the notice of levy of the market fees. The same was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing Revision Application No.74 of 2007 before the State Government under Section 48 of the Act and the State Government rejected the same by order dated 04/12/2007. That being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Revisional Authority - State Government in Revision Application No.74 of 2007, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.30143 of 2007 before this Court, which came to be dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 28/8/2008. That being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by learned Single Judge dismissing the aforesaid Special Civil Application No,30143 of 2007, the petitioner preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.1172 of 2008 before Division Bench of this Court and the said Letters Patent Appeal came to be disposed of by Division Bench by recording the statement of the petitioner that the petitioner would make application to market committee for refund of the fees with respect to the transaction for which the petitioner sold the goods out side the market committee and such application would lie under Rule 49 (1) of the Rules, 1965. The Division Bench disposed of the said Letters Patent Appeal directing the market committee to consider the petitioner's application in accordance with Rules. It appears that thereafter the petitioner submitted the application to the market committee on 18/11/2008. Under Rule 49 of the Rules, requesting to consider his case as per the provisions of Rule 49 and the fees so paid on the purchases of the agricultural produce may be refunded on production of sufficient proof that such goods were not sold within the limits of the market committee. Thereafter on adjudication and considering the application submitted by the petitioner, the market committee wrote letter on 24/7/2009 to the petitioner and directed to deposit entire amount of market cess failing which appropriate proceedings for recovery of the same will be initiated. That being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said notice, the petitioner preferred the revision application before the Revisional Authority and the same has been dismissed by the Revisional Authority by the impugned order. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

(3.) Mr.Dilip Rana, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that both the authorities below have not properly appreciated and considered Rule 49 of the Rules. It is submitted that though it was pointed out that for the agricultural produce which are sold outside the market area, no market fees is leviable on the said purchases, however, the market committee is insisting for market cess, which is absolutely illegal. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has heavily pressed into service Rule 49 of the Rules and requested to allow the present petition.