Market fee levy challenge required fresh consideration where material statutory contentions were not examined.

The High Court's writ disposal was unsustainable because it did not examine the challenge to the notifications or the contention that levy of market fee on Zafrani Zarda was unauthorised. The statutory scheme, including the effect of Section 4-A, and its interaction with Sections 3 and 4, raised material questions of law and fact bearing on the validity of the levy and the applicability of the notifications. Those issues should have been addressed in the first instance. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and remitted the matters to the High Court for fresh disposal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned judgment of the High Court could be sustained when it had not dealt with the material contentions and the matter required reconsideration.

Analysis: The High Court disposed of the writ petitions without examining the challenge to the notifications and without considering the contention that the levy of market fee on Zafrani Zarda was unauthorised or that the statutory scheme, including the effect of Section 4-A, exempted the matter from the operation of Sections 3 and 4. Since the controversy involved significant questions of law and fact that went to the validity of the levy and the applicability of the notifications, the High Court ought to have addressed them in the first instance.

Conclusion: The impugned judgment was set aside and the matters were remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal.

---