TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 561
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ort of rice. It wanted to purchase broken rice from the rice millers of U.P. for the purpose of export to foreign countries and accordingly, made an application on July 31, 1997, to Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Ghaziabad, for grant of a licence. It was also stated in the application that the respondent had exported rice in November, 1996 by purchasing it from places outside U.P. Appellant No. 1 asked respondent No. 1 to deposit the licence fees for the years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98, which was done as per the demand. Thereafter, appellant No. 1 sent a demand notice to respondent No. 1 on October 12, 1997, demanding market fee at the rate of two per cent amounting to Rs. 12,94,860. Respondent No. 1 sent a reply on October 18, 1997, stating that it had never purchased any rice from inside the State of U.P. nor any transaction of sale or purchase of rice was carried out within the State. It was accordingly requested that the demand notice/ order dated October 12, 1997, be rescinded. Appellant No. 1, however, initiated proceeding for recovery of the amount in question and issued a citation dated December 6, 1997. Respondent No. 1 thereafter, filed C.M. Writ Petition No. 43329 of 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the rice was received by respondent No. 1 through its banker, viz., Oriental Bank of Commerce at Delhi. It is the specific case of respondent No. 1 that the entire quantity of the exported rice was purchased from places outside the State of U.P., and was directly sent to the ports without it ever coming within the market area of Ghaziabad or in the State of U.P. It was also asserted that the sale was effected only at the ports when the goods were loaded in the ship and the bill of lading was handed over to respondent No. 1's clearing and forwarding agents. The case of the present appellants was that the business establishment of respondent is at 14, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad and the entire transaction was done from the said place. The purchase order was received and accepted by it at Ghaziabad and the sale price was also received there and therefore the transaction of sale took place in Ghaziabad. It was also pleaded that the transport of the goods and how it was actually exported was wholly irrelevant for ascertaining where the transaction of sale took place. The High Court did not accept the said stand and allowed the writ petition filed. In support of the appeal, learn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which the agricultural producer will have his due representation; (iv) to ensure that the agricultural producer has his say in the uti- lisation of market funds for the improvement of the market as a whole; (v) to provide for fair settlement of disputes relating to the sale of agricultural produce; (vi) to provide amenities to the producer-seller in the market; (vii) to arrange for better storage facilities; (vii) to stop inequitable and unauthorised charges and levies from the producer-seller; and (viii) to make adequate arrangements for market intelligence with a view to posting the agricultural producer with the latest position in respect of the markets dealing with his produce." As the prefatory note and preamble clearly show the object of the Act is to save the agricultural producer from innumerable charges, levies, etc., and to enable them to have a say in the proper utilisation of amounts paid by him to reduce multiple charges, levies, exactions charged from the producer and seller and generally to help the agricultural producer to sell his produce to his best advantage. At the end of the section there is an Explanation whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ys down that unless the contrary is proved any specified agricultural produce taken out or proposed to be taken out of a market area by or on behalf of the licensed traders shall be presumed to have been sold within such area. The Explanation has application only if the agricultural produce is physically present within the market area. The Explanation becomes redundant if the stand of the appellant that section 17(iii)(b) is applicable even in cases where agricultural produce is neither physically brought nor is in existence within the market area. In Ram Chandra Kailash Kumar & Co. v. State of U.P. AIR 1980 SC 1124 it was, inter alia, observed as follows: "This point urged on behalf of the appellants is well founded and must be accepted as correct. On the very wordings of clause (b) of section 17(iii) market fee is payable on transactions of sale of specified agricultural produce in the market area and if no transaction of sale takes place in a particular market area no fee can be charged by the market committee of that area. If goods are merely brought in any market area and are despatched outside it without any transaction of sale taking place therein, then no market fee can b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....covered by the pucca delivery orders are not ascertained at the time such orders are issued and ascertainment takes place in the shape of appropriation when the goods are actually delivered in compliance therewith. Therefore, till appropriation takes place and goods are actually delivered, they are not ascertained. The contract therefore represented by the pucca delivery orders is a contract for the sale of unascertained goods and no property in the goods is transferred to the buyer in view of section 18 of the Indian Sale of Goods Act till the goods are ascertained by appropriation, which in this case takes place at the time only of actual delivery. The appeal court in our opinion was therefore right in holding that the property in the goods included in the pucca delivery orders did not pass to the holders thereof in view of section 18 of the Sale of Goods Act in spite of the decision in the case of the Anglondia Jute Mills Co. [1910] 38 ILR Cal. 127. What that case decided was that in a suit between a holder of a pucca delivery order-be he the first holder or a subsequent holder who has purchased the pucca delivery order in the market-and the mills, there will be an estoppel and ....