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: Sugar Factories Not Liable for Market Fees</h1> <h3>Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. and Anr. Versus State of Bihar and Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court ruled that sugar factories were not liable to pay market fees under the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960, with a prospective ... - Issues:1. Applicability of market fee on sugar factories under Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960.2. Validity of amendments to the Act and challenges by affected sugar industries.3. Refund of market fee paid in the past as per the Supreme Court's decision.4. Dispute over the refund of amount deposited by the Appellants with the High Court.5. Review application by the Appellants against the High Court's order for refund.Analysis:1. The primary issue in this case revolved around the applicability of market fee on sugar factories under the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960. The High Court had initially held that sugar factories engaged in purchasing sugarcane and selling sugar and molasses are liable to pay market fee under the Act. However, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court later ruled that the Act's provisions were not applicable to such factories, with a prospective effect. The Court clarified that past market fees paid would not be refunded, and no further fees would be collected for past transactions.2. The State of Bihar made amendments to the Act, including the deletion and subsequent revival of sugar from the commodities covered. The affected sugar industries challenged these provisions. The High Court upheld the amended provisions, leading to appeals filed in the Supreme Court. The Court's decision in the Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. case clarified the prospective nature of the judgment, ensuring no refund of past market fees paid by the sugar mills.3. Following the Supreme Court's decision, a dispute arose regarding the refund of the amount deposited by the Appellants with the High Court under its interim order. The High Court rejected the Appellants' claim for a refund, directing the amount to be paid to the Market Committee or the Board. The Appellants filed a Special Leave Petition challenging this order, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court.4. The Appellants subsequently filed a review application before the High Court, seeking a review of the order denying the refund. The High Court dismissed the review application, stating that the Appellants could not re-argue points already decided. The Supreme Court, upon review, found no apparent mistake on the face of the record, upholding the High Court's decision and dismissing the appeal.5. The Supreme Court emphasized that the right of review is not an opportunity to re-argue previously rejected points. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, stating that the Appellants could not be allowed to re-litigate issues already settled. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
