TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (9) TMI 45
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to compel the petitioners to take out licences and to pay market fee under the U.P. Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, hereinafter referred to as " the Act ". The petitioners are the producers of khandsari sugar and are the owners of khandsari sugar units which they operate with the aid of power crushers for the production of khandsari sugar. The petitioners claim that as they are only producers of khandsari sugar, they are not liable to take out any licence or to pay the market fee under the Act as illegally demanded by the respondents mandi samitis. It appears from the preamble that the Act provides for the regulation of sale and purchase of agricultural produce and for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he purpose of this Act, have the power to-... (iii) levy and collect: .... (b) market fee, which shall be payable on transactions of sale of specified agricultural produce in the market area at such rates, being not less than one percentum and not more than one and half percentum of the price of the agricultural produce so sold, as the State Government may specify by notification, and such fee shall be realised in the following manner (1) if the produce is sold through a commission agent, the commission agent may realise the market fee from the purchaser and shall be liable to pay the same to the committee ;..." It is urged by Mr. Sorabji, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, that as the petitioners are only prod....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roduce processed, reared, caught or processed by him for his domestic consumption. If, however, the producer produces, rears, catches or processes the agricultural produce not for his domestic consumption, but for the sale thereof in the market area, such a producer will not come within the purview of the proviso and he will have to take out a licence under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Act. We are unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the expression " for his domestic consumption " in the proviso does not refer to a producer of agricultural produce, but to a person who purchases or stores any agricultural produce. As has been stated already, if the proviso is interpreted to mean that a producer o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction (1) of section 9 of the Act. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed much reliance upon a decision of this court in Ramesh Chandra v. State of U.P. [1980] 3 SCR 104; AIR 1980 SC 1124, which also relates to the Act with which we are concerned. In that case, it has been observed that a producer-trader will be required to take out a licence and the expression " producer-trader " has been explained to be a person who is both a producer of agricultural produce and also trades in it. We do not think that the decision at all supports the contention of the petitioners. The petitioners, in our opinion, by producing khandsari sugar and selling it within the market area are also " traders " within the meanin....