Market fee on timber under the agricultural marketing law survives GST and applies to notified produce.

A levy under the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Marketing Act, 1961 was upheld as a market fee, not a cess, because it was imposed under the State's agricultural marketing law and did not depend on trading inside the market yard. Timber, including imarti lakadi, was treated as notified agricultural produce since it is specifically listed in the Schedule, making it exigible to market fee. The introduction of GST did not extinguish the levy, as the fee arose under a separate State enactment and was not displaced by the repeal and saving provisions of the CGST Act or the Rajasthan GST Act. The writ petition was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the levy on timber sold by the members of the petitioner society was a cess or a market fee under the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Marketing Act, 1961; (ii) Whether timber or imarti lakadi was an agricultural produce exigible to market fee under the Act; (iii) Whether the introduction of GST abolished the levy of market fee under the Act of 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the levy on timber sold by the members of the petitioner society was a cess or a market fee under the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Marketing Act, 1961.

Analysis: The levy under Section 17 of the Act of 1961 was treated as a market fee and not as a cess. The challenge was founded on an incorrect premise that the impost was a cess. Market fee is a regulatory levy within the legislative competence of the State under the relevant constitutional entry, and liability does not depend on whether the dealer carries on business inside the market yard.

Conclusion: The levy was held to be a market fee, not a cess, and the challenge failed.

Issue (ii): Whether timber or imarti lakadi was an agricultural produce exigible to market fee under the Act.

Analysis: Section 2(i) of the Act of 1961 treats the items mentioned in the Schedule as agricultural produce, and timber is specifically enumerated in the Schedule. The reasoning also followed the view that timber falls within the notified agricultural produce covered by the statute.

Conclusion: Timber or imarti lakadi was held to be agricultural produce exigible to market fee.

Issue (iii): Whether the introduction of GST abolished the levy of market fee under the Act of 1961.

Analysis: The GST regime subsumed various indirect taxes and certain cesses and surcharges, but the market fee under the Act of 1961 was levied under a separate State enactment and was not covered by the repeal and saving provisions in Section 174 of the CGST Act or the Rajasthan GST Act. The levy therefore survived the introduction of GST.

Conclusion: The introduction of GST did not abolish the levy under the Act of 1961.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected because the impugned levy was a valid market fee on notified agricultural produce and was not displaced by the GST enactment.

Ratio Decidendi: A State market fee leviable under a separate agricultural marketing statute remains enforceable within the notified area even outside the market yard, and it is not extinguished by GST unless expressly covered by the repeal and saving provisions.

---