KIRANA GRAINS AND EDIBLE OILS WHOLESALE AND RETAIL MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION CHANDRAPUR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Chandrapur, constituted under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (The Act) for the first time in the year 1981, started levying market fees on the goods imported within the area of the Market Committee on the importer at the point of their entry in the Market Committee. A registered association of the wholesale ad retail merchants carrying on business of grains and edible oil within the area of the Market Committee has by this petition challenged the validity of levy in its manner in respect of produce brought in the market area for sale. The only point that is pressed before us is whether such levy has any sanction in the provisions of the Act. Our answer is "No for the following reasons.

(2.) Section 31 of the Act which gives the power to the Marketing Committee to levy fees reads as under :

(3.) Our attention is invited to the first proviso to section 31 in support of a proposition that the term purchaser in the said section includes an importer who has purchased the produce from the area outside the Market Committee. It is difficult to accept this submission. Admittedly, we are not concerned with a situation contemplated under the first proviso namely, of a trader importing the produce for the purposes of processing only or for export and the processing or export is not done within 30 days. In such a situation presumption in favour of marketing arises and the fees can be levied on the basis of that presumption unless contrary is proved. Rule 32 prescribes a procedure a meet the situation contemplated under the first proviso. A trader, commission agent, or a processor is obliged to make a declaration in Form 8 immediately on bringing any declared agricultural produce in a market area. After a period of 30 days, the presumption is that the goods have been sold are neither exported nor processed. In a situation like this, quite obviously the purchaser cannot be located and hence statutory liability is filed on the person making the declaration. It is difficult to see how the said analogy can be applied to the main charging section in the face of the clarity of the language. It is difficult to accept the submissions that a trader is a purchaser of the goods though in the area outside the market area and hence as soon as such goods are imported in the area for purposes of marketing within the area, the levy is attracted. The manner of acquisition of the produce by an importer is a wholly irrelevant factor. Interpretation put forth for acceptance on behalf of the Committee misses the basis difference between levy of market fees and octroi duty. What the Committee is in fact doing is recovery of octroi duty in the name of market fees. Any genuine doubt about legislative intention is removed, on reading Rule 32(2). It is made amply clear that the incidence of levy is after the weighment or measurement of the produce. Rule reiterates that liability is of the purchaser.