Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.40 seconds)

Sree Rama Traders, Kakinada vs Agricultural Market Committee, ... on 31 January, 2000

14. Another grievance in this writ petition is that even in respect of the commodities purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh, market fee is sought to be lieved on the petitioner, contrary to the provisions of the Act. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that such market fee is sought to be levied at the check posts. The law on this question is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this Court in Modem Nutrition Company, Hyderabad v. Agricultural Market Committee, 1996 (4) ALD 801 (DB), has held that the condition for the payment of fee is that the agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock are purchased or sold in the notified market area. Explanation I of Section 12 of the Act can only give rise to a presumption that such articles falling under the definition of 'agricultural produce', etc., which are subjected to levy under Section 12, if found within the limits of the market area or seen being taking out of the notified market area, are liable to fee, but it shall be open to the owner of the goods concerned to dispute the claim and once he disputed/disputes the claim, unless there is an enquiry, the presumption would not entitle the market committee concerned to realise the fee. It has also been held that the market fee shall be realisable by the concerned market committee only if the agricultural produce or live stock or products of live stock are purchased or sold in the notified market area".
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - G Raghuram - Full Document

M/S. Sri Balaji Dal Producers And Others vs The Director Of Agricultural Market ... on 17 December, 2015

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed on record two judgments of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Modern Nutrition Company, Hyderabad vs. Agricultural Market Committee and others and Kurnool District Rice Millers Association and others vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Amtakur and others . Learned counsel for the petitioners had also relied on the judgment dated 04.04.2002 of the single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.17932 of 2001. The purport of these judgments is to the effect that the Market Committees are not entitled to collect any market fees at check posts and they do not have the jurisdiction to stop the vehicles for collection of market fees at the check posts.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - K R Challa - Full Document

Prasanthi Cashew Company, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 31 July, 2019

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.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - M G Rao - Full Document

Murali Krishna Enterprises vs The State Of Ap on 1 September, 2022

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on Modern Nutrition Company, Hyderabad, Vs. Agricultural Market Committee and others1; and Kurnool District Rice Millers Association and others Vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Atmakur, and others2 to contend that Agricultural Market Committees are not entitled to collect any market fee at 1 1996 (4) ALD 801 (D.B.) 2 1998 (3) ALD 167 (D.B.) 4 check posts and they do not have the jurisdiction to stop vehicles for collection of market fees at check posts.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - K S Reddy - Full Document
1