TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Upholds Machinery Provisions for Fee Assessment</h1> <h3>Heinz India Pvt. Ltd. and Another Versus State of UP. and Others</h3> Heinz India Pvt. Ltd. and Another Versus State of UP. and Others - [2012] 50 VST 13 (SC), 2012 (3) SCR 898, 2012 (5) SCC 443, 2012 (3) JT 534, 2012 (3) ... Issues Involved:1. Machinery provisions for assessment of fees under the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964.2. Legal standard/test for rebutting the presumption under Explanation to Section 17(iii) of the Act.3. Validity of orders passed by the Mandi Utpadan Samiti and the Director, as delegate of the Mandi Parishad.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Re: Question No.1 - Machinery Provisions for Assessment of Fees:The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of machinery provisions in taxing statutes, citing previous judgments (Kunnathat Thathunni Moopil Nair v. State of Kerala, Rai Ramkrishna v. State of Bihar, Raja Jagannath Baksh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Nalla Raja Reddy). The Court noted that the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, had been previously upheld in Ram Chandra Kailash Kumar & Co. & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., which confirmed the existence of machinery provisions under the Act. The Court rejected the argument that the absence of a comprehensive machinery provision invalidated the levy or collection of market fees. It was noted that revisions under Section 32 of the Act, heard by the Director as a delegate of the Board, were valid. The Court recommended that the Board delegate the power of hearing and disposal of revision petitions to a senior and experienced officer to enhance the effectiveness and transparency of the process.Re: Question No.2 - Standard of Proof for Rebutting Presumption:The Court examined the rebuttable presumption under Explanation to Section 17(iii) of the Act, which assumes that any specified agricultural produce taken out of a market area by a licensed trader has been sold within that area. The Court clarified that the presumption is rebuttable and the standard of proof required is higher than mere preponderance of probability but does not reach the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence must be clear and convincing. This heightened standard is justified due to the fiscal nature of the statute and the exclusive knowledge of the appellants regarding the transactions. The Court concluded that the evidence intended to rebut the statutory presumption must be clear and convincing to show that the presumed fact is not the real fact.Re: Question No.3 - Validity of Orders by Mandi Samiti and Director:The Court reviewed the findings of the Mandi Samiti and the Director, noting that both authorities had found the evidence presented by the appellants insufficient to rebut the presumption of sale within the market area. The Court emphasized the limitations of judicial review, stating that it does not involve re-appreciation of evidence or substitution of the Court's findings for those of the authorities. The findings of the Mandi Samiti and the Director were not irrational or perverse and were based on a reasonable evaluation of the evidence. The Court rejected the appellants' request to produce additional material or for a remand, stating that the appellants had ample opportunity to present their case before the authorities. The Court upheld the orders of the Mandi Samiti and the Director, concluding that the appellants had failed to rebut the statutory presumption effectively.Conclusion:The appeals and the writ petition were dismissed, with costs assessed at Rs. 15,000/- in each case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
