Directory filing deadlines cannot defeat statutory exemption from double levy where prior payment elsewhere is established.

Where the statutory scheme grants exemption from a second levy on proof that fee has already been paid elsewhere, the prescribed time for filing the supporting form is directory unless the statute clearly makes it mandatory. Delay in furnishing Form-LL under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Rules could not defeat exemption from second-time market fee, because the rule's object was to prevent double payment. Likewise, delayed filing of Form-E under the Haryana Rural Development regime did not extinguish exemption from a second levy, absent any rebuttal to prior payment elsewhere. The demands were therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether delay in furnishing Form-LL under Rule 30(5) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962 could defeat the dealer's claim to exemption from second-time market fee under Section 23 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961; and (ii) whether non-furnishing of Form-E within the prescribed period could defeat exemption from Haryana Rural Development fee under the Haryana Rural Development Fund Act, 1986 read with Rule 3(12) of the Haryana Rural Development Rules, 1987.

Issue (i): Whether delay in furnishing Form-LL under Rule 30(5) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962 could defeat the dealer's claim to exemption from second-time market fee under Section 23 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961.

Analysis: The levy of market fee is subject to the statutory rules, and the main provision of Rule 30(5) grants exemption from payment of market fee a second time where agricultural produce brought for processing has already suffered fee in another market within the State. The requirement to file Form-LL within twenty days is only the procedural condition attached to the claim of exemption. Since the object of the rule is to prevent double payment of fee, the time limit for filing the certificate could not be treated as sacrosanct so as to destroy the exemption itself.

Conclusion: The period prescribed for filing Form-LL was directory, not mandatory, and the dealer remained entitled to the exemption from second-time market fee.

Issue (ii): Whether non-furnishing of Form-E within the prescribed period could defeat exemption from Haryana Rural Development fee under the Haryana Rural Development Fund Act, 1986 read with Rule 3(12) of the Haryana Rural Development Rules, 1987.

Analysis: The scheme of the Haryana Rural Development levy also prevents repeated charging where fee has already been paid in another notified area within the State. Rule 3(12) exempts such agricultural produce from further levy, while Form-E is only the documentary requirement for claiming that exemption. In the absence of any rebuttal to the assertion that the fee had already been paid elsewhere, the delayed filing of Form-E could not extinguish the substantive exemption.

Conclusion: The time requirement for filing Form-E was directory, and the dealer was entitled to exemption from Haryana Rural Development fee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned demands for a second levy of market fee and rural development fee were unsustainable, as procedural delay in furnishing the prescribed forms could not override the substantive statutory exemption against double collection.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory scheme grants exemption from a second levy on proof that the fee has already been paid elsewhere, the prescribed time for furnishing the supporting declaration or certificate is directory unless the statute clearly makes it mandatory; procedural delay cannot defeat the substantive exemption.

---