TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether section 7(6) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966, which prohibits purchase or sale of notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock outside the market in a notified market area, is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the enhancement of market fee under section 12(1) of the Act from 50 paise to rupee one per hundred rupees is invalid for want of quid pro quo. (iii) Whether, under Rule 74(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Rules, 1969, market fee is payable again on rice where paddy has already suffered market fee, and the scope of exemption from multi-point levy.
Issue (i): Whether section 7(6) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966, which prohibits purchase or sale of notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock outside the market in a notified market area, is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The statutory scheme was held to be a complete regulatory code intended to eliminate middlemen, protect producers and secure fair prices through regulated markets. The prohibition in section 7(6) was treated as integral to that scheme and as necessary for effective supervision, orderly marketing and prevention of evasion of the regulated market system. The restriction was not regarded as arbitrary or excessive, and the right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) was held to be subject to such regulation in the interests of the general public.
Conclusion: Section 7(6) is constitutionally valid and constitutes a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6), against the assessee/petitioner.
Issue (ii): Whether the enhancement of market fee under section 12(1) of the Act from 50 paise to rupee one per hundred rupees is invalid for want of quid pro quo.
Analysis: The levy of market fee was held to be correlated to the statutory purposes for which the market committees function, including establishment, maintenance and improvement of markets, provision of facilities, weights and measures, grading, preservation and other developmental activities. Quid pro quo was stated to require only a broad and reasonable relationship, not mathematical precision or an exact matching of expenditure to each payer. The Court treated earlier observations demanding a strict quantified correlation as confined to their facts and held that the fee did not become invalid merely because collections may be pooled in the market committee fund or because some committees had surplus in particular years. The services were held to be rendered to the class of users of the regulated market, not only to each individual transaction at the point of payment.
Conclusion: The increase in market fee is valid and the challenge based on absence of quid pro quo fails, against the assessee/petitioner.
Issue (iii): Whether, under Rule 74(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Rules, 1969, market fee is payable again on rice where paddy has already suffered market fee, and the scope of exemption from multi-point levy.
Analysis: Paddy and rice were treated as separate notified commodities, so levy could arise at both stages under section 12(1) on the plain language of the Act. However, Rule 74(1) was construed as an exemption provision intended to prevent repetition of levy where fee had already been paid to one market committee within the State and the commodity is brought into another notified market area for the specified purposes. The Court read the rule conjunctively and held that, where the rule applies and the prescribed proof is produced, fee shall not be collected again by another market committee. The proviso was read as preserving levy on sales within the market itself. Thus, the availability of exemption depended on satisfying the conditions of Rule 74(1).
Conclusion: Double levy is not permissible where the conditions of Rule 74(1) are satisfied, but otherwise the fee remains leviable on rice as a separate notified commodity, against the assessee/petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The regulatory scheme, the enhanced market fee, and the core levy provisions were upheld, while the exemption under Rule 74(1) was recognised only to the extent indicated by the Court; on the facts, all writ petitions and connected appeals failed.
Ratio Decidendi: In a regulated market statute, a market fee is valid if it bears a broad, reasonable correlation to the services and facilities provided to the class of users of the market, and an exemption from repeated levy must be confined to the precise conditions expressed in the rule granting it.
TaxTMI 
