Rebuttable presumption under market fee law requires opportunity to contest deemed sale before assessment.

The Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 was construed harmoniously so that the explanation to section 2(p)(i) and the explanation to section 27 could operate together. The definition-based deeming fiction in section 2(p)(i) was read subject to the charging provision, while section 27 was treated as creating a rebuttable presumption that notified agricultural produce leaving the market area had been bought or sold there. Market fee could therefore be assessed only after giving the affected party an opportunity to rebut that presumption, with section 27 prevailing in operation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the explanation to section 2(p)(i) of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960, and the explanation to section 27 of that Act could be harmoniously construed, and whether the charging section's explanation would prevail so that market fee could be assessed only after giving the affected party an opportunity to rebut the presumption.

Analysis: The explanation to section 27 creates a rebuttable presumption that notified agricultural produce leaving the market area was bought or sold there, and it expressly gives the affected party an opportunity to show the contrary. The explanation to section 2(p)(i), being a definition provision, was read down so as to co-exist with the charging provision. In fiscal legislation, greater weight was given to the charging section and its explanation, and transactions falling within the deeming fiction in section 2(p)(i) were still held to be governed by the rebuttal procedure under section 27.

Conclusion: The two explanations were held to co-exist, with section 27 prevailing in operation. Assessment of market fee could be made only after giving the respondents an opportunity to rebut the presumption, and the challenge to the High Court's approach failed.

---