Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Prasanthi Cashew Company, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 31 July, 2019
Author: M. Ganga Rao
Bench: M.Ganga Rao
HONOURABALE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO
Writ Petition No.7800 of 2019
ORDER:
Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in detaining the vehicle bearing No.AP-21-U-7137 on 18-06-2019 at Penumuru Check Post and the demand notice dated 20-06-2019 on the ground that the petitioner was transporting cashew nuts from Kollam, Kerala to Tirupathi, A.P., without paying market fees to the Market Committee, the present writ petition is filed.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm and is engaged in business of trading in cashew nuts. The 3rd respondent placed orders for supply of 1,55,000 kgs of cashew splits "S" Grade vide its order dated 27-05-2019 for a consideration mentioned therein on FOR delivery at its marketing godown-1, TTD, Tirupathi. In terms of the supply order, the petitioner vide tax invoice No.PCC/I/K/35/19-20, dated 17-06-2019 sold nine tons (450 cases) of cashew to the 3rd respondent. The petitioner engaged the service of Sri Venkateswara Cargo Movers, Kollam for delivery of the said goods to the 3rd respondent from Kollam, Kerala to Tirupathi. While the said goods are in transit, the officials of the 2nd respondent detained the vehicle bearing No.AP-21-U-7137 on 28-11-2016 at Penumuru Cross Check Post on the ground that the commodity is being transported without paying market fee to the market committee. The 2nd respondent issued proceedings in Lr.M/Fee Collections/2019, dated 20-06-2019 demanding the petitioner to pay market fees of an amount of Rs.61,475/-. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.
2 MGR, J W.P.No7800 of 2019
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Agriculture, Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966, the 2nd respondent has no authority to detain or collect market fee from the petitioner. He also contended that as per Section 12 of the Act, the market committee shall levy fees on notified agriculture produce purchased or sold in the notified market area, but the subject goods i.e. cashew nut is neither sold by the petitioner nor purchased by the 3rd respondent within the notified market area. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed a reliance on Modern Nutrition Company v. Agricultural Market Committee1 to contend that the respondent authorities are not entitled to realize any market fee from any person at the check post, who is not shown to have purchased or sold any agricultural produce.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and following the ratio laid down in the decision cited supra, the respondent authorities herein are not entitled to realize any market fee from the petitioner for the subject goods of cashew nut. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the demand notice in Lr.M/Fee Collections/2019, dated 20-06-2019 is set aside. No costs. 1 1996 (4) ALT 1060 3 MGR, J W.P.No7800 of 2019 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
________________ M. GANGA RAO, J Date: 31-07-2019 Ksn