TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the assessment and devising a fresh procedure for levy and collection of market fee under the Mandi law; (ii) Whether market fee was exigible on removal of goods from the market area where the trader failed to obtain gate passes and failed to rebut the statutory presumption of sale.
Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the assessment and devising a fresh procedure for levy and collection of market fee under the Mandi law.
Analysis: The statutory scheme and the earlier decisions of the Court had already provided the governing procedure for issue of gate passes, provisional assessment, rebuttal of the presumption of sale, and final assessment. The High Court could not substitute that framework with a new mechanism of its own, especially where the matter was already covered by binding precedent and any further modification had to come from the Court itself. The High Court also erred in treating the levy dispute as if the officers had no basis to act under the existing procedure.
Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in evolving a new procedure or in interfering on that ground.
Issue (ii): Whether market fee was exigible on removal of goods from the market area where the trader failed to obtain gate passes and failed to rebut the statutory presumption of sale.
Analysis: Under Section 17(iii)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, the removal of specified agricultural produce from the market area carries a presumption of sale within the notified area unless rebutted. Where goods were removed without gate passes and without prima facie material showing that no sale had taken place, the Mandi Samiti was entitled to demand market fee and development fee. The concurrent findings of the Samiti and the revisional authority that the respondent had not rebutted the presumption were not shown to be perverse.
Conclusion: Market fee was rightly levied and the presumption of sale was not rebutted.
Final Conclusion: The assessment made by the Mandi authorities was upheld and the High Court's interference was set aside, leaving the original levy and consequential directions in force.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute raises a presumption of sale on removal of goods from the market area, the trader must rebut it in accordance with the prescribed procedure, and the High Court cannot create a substitute mechanism inconsistent with binding precedent.
TaxTMI 
