TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (8) TMI 1061
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere purchased is the main question which arises for consideration in these petitions. An ancillary question, which we have been called upon to decide is whether non-submission of forms LL and E prescribed under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962 (for short, "the 1962 Rules") and the Haryana Rural Development Rules, 1987 (for short, "the 1987 Rules") respectively disentitles the dealer from claiming exemption from payment of market fee, etc. 2.. The petitioners are engaged in the processing of rice from paddy purchased from various market yards within and from outside the State of Haryana. They are registered as dealers under the 1961 Act as well as the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short, "the 1973 Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ealisation of the market fee, etc., from the petitioners and other similar situated licensees. However, after the order passed by this Court in the case of M/s. Ganesh Rice and General Mills was reversed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6081 of 1998 Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Boards v. Ganesh Rice and General Mills AIR 1999 SC 378 the Chief Administrator of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board issued instructions vide Memo No. ME-III-3404-99 dated February 16, 1999 to the authorities of the market committees to insist on strict compliance of rule 30 of the 1962 Rules including the submission of form LL within 20 days of the date of bringing the agricultural produce in the notified market area and in pursuance of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee and rural development fund are not mandatory and even if the dealer submits such forms after the expiry of the said period, it is entitled to claim exemption. However, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Boards v. Ganesh Rice and General Mills AIR 1999 SC 378, these decisions can no longer be treated as good law. In that case, their Lordships referred to rule 30 of the 1962 Rules and held that the provision contained therein is mandatory. The relevant portion of the decision of the Supreme Court reads as under: "4. Rule 30 of the Rules provides that no market fee shall be levied on the sale or purchase of any agricultural produce in respect of which such fee is already paid in the notified....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by him or his authorised agent in the office of the committee from whose market area the agricultural produce is brought before it is unloaded, the second copy in the office of the committee within whose market area the agricultural produce is brought before it is unloaded and the third copy to be retained by him: Provided that if no such copy of R/R, forwarding note, bilty or challan is produced in the office of the concerned committee, no claim for exemption shall be entertained. (5) The agricultural produce brought for processing from within the State "or from outside the State" and for which market fee has already been paid in any market in the State "or outside the State", shall be exempted from payment of market fee second time: Pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. 7.. The High Court has unfortunately overlooked the fact that the first respondent had not filed form LL and make a declaration or give a certificate as required by the rule, but instead filed only form M and that too leaving column 7 blank. The High Court has proceeded on the footing that there was only a delay in filing the required declaration. Hence the judgment of the High Court is not sustainable and the appeal is to be allowed....'". 7.. After declaring that the view taken by this Court in Ganesh Rice and General Mills case AIR 1999 SC 378 is erroneous, their Lordships of the Supreme Court proceeded to give following relief to the petitioners: "But learned counsel for the first respondent points out rightly that in the memo iss....