TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether dal obtained by splitting legumes specified in the Schedule is included within the expression specified agricultural produce so as to attract market fee under the Act; (ii) Whether an amendment of the Schedule under section 4A alone was insufficient to make the amended items specified agricultural produce requiring a further notification under sections 6 or 8.
Issue (i): Whether dal obtained by splitting legumes specified in the Schedule is included within the expression specified agricultural produce so as to attract market fee under the Act.
Analysis: The definition of agricultural produce expressly included items specified in the Schedule and also any such item in processed form. Reading the Schedule and the notification together, the whole grain of legumes and their split form were both intended to be covered. The processed form did not cease to be the scheduled commodity, and the market fee mechanism under section 17 applied to sales of such specified agricultural produce in the market area.
Conclusion: The split form of the scheduled legumes was included within specified agricultural produce and market fee was leviable on sales of dal. The finding was against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
Issue (ii): Whether an amendment of the Schedule under section 4A alone was insufficient to make the amended items specified agricultural produce requiring a further notification under sections 6 or 8.
Analysis: A fresh notification would have been necessary only if the amendment introduced a new commodity not already covered by the original schedule and notification. Since the earlier entries already comprehended both whole legumes and dal, the amendment merely made explicit what was implicit and did not create a new class of produce requiring a further notification under sections 6 or 8.
Conclusion: No further notification was required, and the challenge to levy on that ground failed. The finding was against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the High Court's view on liability to market fee was set aside, and the matters were remitted only for examination of surviving contentions not decided by the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute defining agricultural produce includes scheduled items and their processed form, the split form of a scheduled legume remains within the notified commodity unless the statutory scheme clearly excludes it; an amendment that merely clarifies an existing inclusion does not require a fresh notification to sustain levy.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
