IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR W.P. NO.44853/2017 (APMC) BETWEEN:
M/S. SUPREME RICE INDUSTRIES CHIPLI, LINGADAHALLI, SAGARA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT – 577 417 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER GIRISH PRABHU ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H., ADV.,) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001 2. THE DIRECTOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING NO.16, 2ND RAJ BHAWAN ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001 3. THE SECRETARY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE SAGARA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577401 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.C.KAVITA, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI T.SWAROOP, ADV., FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER VIDE ANNEX-D DATED 22.9.2017 PASSED BY R-3 COMMITTEE HOLDING THE SAME IS ILLEAL AND ETC., THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and learned HCGP on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The petitioner has called in question the demand notice vide Annexure-D dated 22.09.2017 bearing No.KruUMaSa(Sa)/Niyantrana/609/2017-18.
3. The present petition is taken up for final disposal to determine as to whether the petitioner is liable to comply with the demand notice for payment of market levy assessed by the third respondent on the basis of the imports made by the petitioner into the market area.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of the court to Annexure-A, whereby, the third respondent has sought for details of the activities of the petitioner in respect of sale of notified produce. In response to the same, the petitioner has furnished the statements of his activities with respect to notified produce brought into the market area vide Annexures-B to B6. He further places reliance on Annexure-E/circular issued by the Government clarifying the aspect, that levy of market fee on imports of notified produce is not permissible and directed all the market committees to refund the market fee, if the same was collected. He further contends that very demand notice is illegal and contrary to the law.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 would draw the attention of this Court to the very same Annexures-B to B6 and submit that the information furnished by the petitioner pertains only to the purchase of notified produce from outside the State but the information regarding the sale of the same has deliberately screened by the petitioner. He would further submit that there is no dispute that the notified produce has been brought into the market area but no detail has been furnished with regard to the disposal of the same. It is asserted that the petitioner is duty bound to furnish the details of sale transactions of notified produce and also as to whether the notified produce, brought into the market area, has undergone any process and if the produce which has undergone a process has resulted in any other notified produce. He submits that the petitioner has not furnished none of these details to the third respondent. Hence, third respondent was constrained to issue demand notice by levying market fee based on the details of the notified produce brought into the market area.
6. On perusal of Annexure-A, it is seen that the demand notice issued by the third respondent is vague and ambiguous. The third respondent shall endeavour to seek specific details and correspondingly, the petitioner is also bound to furnish the details of the purchase/sale. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has furnished the details by way of weekly statement to the third respondent which pertains to agricultural produce purchased from outside the State and none of the materials and annexures produced before this Court demonstrate as to what has happened to the notified produce brought into the market area. Hence, the petitioner is duty bound under the statute to provide such details, as to whether such notified produce has been sold or whether it has undergone any process resulting in a different notified produce etc., 7. In view of the ambiguity in proceedings, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned notice imposing and levying market fee based on the quantum of notified produce brought into the market area cannot be sustained and the same requires to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. The matter is remitted back to respondent No.3 to seek for specific details of sale and thereafter, the third respondent shall assess the market fee leviable and issue demand notice accordingly. Further, the petitioner is directed to furnish such details as may be demanded by the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
Sd/- JUDGE HJ