Timber processing as trading activity triggered licensing, return filing and market fee obligations under the marketing law.

Timber processing within a notified market area was treated as activity within the statutory definition of trader under the West Bengal Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1972, because the scheme of the Act covers processing of notified agricultural produce and prohibits such business without a licence. As the petitioner's factory was located in the market area and its own application showed an intention to purchase, process and sell timber, the obligations to obtain a licence, file turnover returns and pay market fee applied. The notice requiring a fortnightly return was therefore not shown to be without jurisdiction, and the challenge to the levy and return requirements failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner, carrying on processing of timber within the notified market area, was a trader liable to obtain licence, submit returns and pay market fee under the West Bengal Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1972, and whether the impugned notice requiring fortnightly return was valid.

Analysis: Timber was a notified agricultural produce under the Act. The petitioner's factory was within the notified market area, and the petitioner's own application showed an intention to purchase, process and sell timber. On the scheme of section 2(t), a trader includes a person engaged in processing or preservation of agricultural produce, and section 13 prohibits such business within the market area without a licence. Section 17 and section 17-A provide for levy of market fee and submission of turnover returns by licensed traders, with assessment on failure to comply. The processing of timber from imported pine-wood therefore attracted the statutory obligations, and the notice calling for return was not shown to be without jurisdiction. The challenge to the notice could not succeed on the footing that the petitioner was outside the statutory definition of trader or outside the levy provisions.

Conclusion: The petitioner was liable to comply with the Act, obtain the necessary licence, and submit returns; the impugned notice was valid, and the reliefs sought against levy and return requirements were ed.

---