TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 affirms Maharashtra Act, rules on 'Vanaspati' inclusion, payment to State Govt, no interest charges</h1> The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision in a case involving the interpretation of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) ... - Issues involved: Interpretation of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 regarding levy of market fee and supervision charges, validity of notification adding items to the Schedule, payment of interest on delayed dues.Interpretation of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963:The appellant, a Market Committee, collected market fee and supervision charges on notified agricultural produces marketed on wholesale basis. Dispute arose when respondents did not register under the Act, claiming 'Vanaspati' was not included in the Schedule. Litigations ensued challenging the notification and fee collection. The High Court held that while market fee was valid, supervision charges were to be paid to the State Government, not the Committee.Validity of Notification Adding Items to Schedule:The High Court confirmed the validity of adding 'Vanaspati' to the Schedule under the Act, which was accepted by the respondent who deposited market fee amounts on specified dates. However, the issue of supervision charges was contested by the respondent, arguing no services were rendered in the market area to warrant such charges.Payment of Interest on Delayed Dues:Regarding interest on delayed dues, the High Court ruled that the Committee had no power to charge interest on market fees and supervision charges. The Court emphasized that the levy of charges must be justified and based on statutory provisions, with no unjust enrichment for the State. The Court cited precedents to distinguish between taxes and fees, emphasizing the principle of equivalence for levy of fees.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, stating that supervision charges must be justified by the State, and interest payment must be in accordance with statutory provisions. The Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court's decision and dismissed the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
