t^\^^ IN THE^HISH COURT OF JU&ICATURE AT BILASPUR i- .'-i. W. P. (C) N0 .^2^0F ?£Sff-'~>ffV~8 / '.. '. . '• ':.! • 1 ; !. PETITIONER f1.®''' .^^€ M^"" .^f>''' ^ / .^^ ,^'^ ^^ Mohan Jute Mills Ltd. Company incorporat^d under Companies Act having \1s registered ' office at 1, KYD, Street 16-A- Palace Court, Kolkata 700016 through its power of aftorney holdsr RESPON&ENTS: ^w. Subhgshish Mallick, S/o late ?^ D.P.Mallick, aged about 47 years, resident of Staff quarters, Mohah Jute Mills Litd. Rajgar'h. Versus . K State of Chhattisgar'h, through Secretary, Agriculture, Y &.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (C.6.) 2. Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipanan (Mandi) Board, Raipur 3 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, .Tashpur, through its Secretary. A body constituted under Section 11 of the C.S.Kr'ishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyom, ^1972. ;: .' ' ' ' . : .. 4. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Raigarh. A body constituted under Section 11 of the C.S.Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyami 1972. ,,. • . : - : •": . .. . i. 5. Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh, »1 %.ia >sss» sa •» • C.6. ^ 6. Collector, Jashpur'nagar, C.6. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2^26 OF THE CONSTITUTiaN OF INOIA FOR ISSUANGE OF WRIT IN TKE NATURE OR CERTICTRARI/ MAN&AMUS. PROHIBITION AND FOR OTHER SUltABLE WRIT OR WRITS. OR&ER OR ORbERS. DIRECTION OR t>lRECtIONS. ^ff.- eaa BiEl ^f^-y^ i«Sai--^ AFA mCH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. \ WRITPETITIONfC) No. 92 of2008 PETITIONER : Mohan Jute Mills Ltd. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh, & Others. Post for pronouncement ofthe Judgment and Order on /5/10/2008 Satish^.T '"'" 3udge iboW ^w. 0 WKh u ^i!ifs'n»s,_ ^ '^ \^ fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS X...4-.- o? WRIT PETITION CC) No.92of2008 Mohan Jute Mills Ltd. Company incorporated under Companies Act having its registered office at 1, KYD, Sta-eet 16-A, Palace Court, Kolkata 700016 through its power of attomey holder Subhashish Mallick, S/o late DjP.Mallick, aged about 47 years, resident of staff quarters, Mohan Jute Mills Litd. Raigarh. VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Agriculture, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipanan (Mandi) Board, Raipur. 3. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jashpur, through its Secretary. A body constituted under Section 11 ofthe C.G.Krishi UpajMandi Adhimyam, 1972. 4. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Raigarh.A Body constituted under section 11 of the C.G.Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972. . 5. Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh, C.G. 6. Collector, Jashpurnagar, C.G. WRJT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ENDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri SatishK. Aenihotri, J. Present: ShriAbhishek Sinha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashaak Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1, 5 and 6. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent No. 2 to 4. (Passed on ..... l.&^ day of October, 2008) 1. The petitioner challenges the levying and recovery ofmarket fee by fhe respondent No. 2, 3 and 4 on thejute brought by the petitioner within the market area for processing and manufacturing ofgunny bags. 2. The brief facts, in nutshellare that the petitioner, who is the manufacturer ofgunny bags, purchasesjute as raw materials from other states namely state of West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand and Orrisa. The jute brought within the market area is subjected to processing aiid production ofgunriy bags. 3. Shri Abhishek Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the market fee is not payable on raw materials which are ^- R-as^. SsSfV""' 'igy' "^-^ss^- - brought within the markef -area^ fbr manufacturing gunny hags fbr tBe purpose offflakingthe same marketable. Shri Sinhawould iurther submii that the nataire offhejutecottiestoanendwhen thejute are proeessed and used for the purpose of manufacture of guimy bags. SUri Sinha relies onadecisiOnoftheHon'bleSupremeCourtmthematterofOn'eHfPaper & Industries Ltd.v. State ofM.P. wid Others in support ofhis contehtion that when the raw material is used fpr processitlg and the end user is manufacturer, levy ofmarket fee is not attracted. Shri Y.S.Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, per contra would submit fhat the market fee is leviable fee on the raw materials. In the present case, flioughthe hature ofthejute changes after manufaeturing of gunny bags, but the basic material of the gunny bags remains-the same i.e. jute. Thus, market fee is leviable under the provisions of eiihattisgarh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhmiyam, 1972 (for short 'the Aet, 1972). I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused the : pleadmgs and documents appeiided thereto; It.is evident that the power fo levy market fee is provided under section 19 of the Act, 1972, whiGh reads as under: . '19. Power to .levy market fee.-[(l) Every market CoBmiittee shalllevy marketfee— • .' : ' (i) on fhe sale of notified agricultural produce whefher brought from within the State 6r ffom outside the State into the market area;.and ,' .' '. : ' •: : • •' :: , ' ;, (ii) o& the notified agriculture produce ^whether brought &om within the State or from outside the State into the market areas and usedfbrprocessmg; at such.rates as may be fixed by theTState Govemmefif &om tmi& totime subjectto ammiraumrMe of'fift^^aise'an maximum o£two rupees fbr eveiy one huiKlred Tupees Qf tUe price inthe mahnerprescribed:, ' : .' ! ^ AIRSCW6017 v i...:-^^«iaaNNa =^^>.»i^sl-^. iliu'3tt'!u.H«isiaiti»-iis ~^v.»...^y' Provided that no Market Committee ofher than the one in whose market area the notified agriGultural produce is brought for sale or processirig by an agriculturist or trader,. as the case may be, forthe first time shall levy such market fee.] (2) The markef fees shall be payable by the buyer ofthe notified agricultural produce an shall not be deducted from the price payable to the seller: [Provided that where the buyer of a notified agricultural produce caimot be identified, all the fees shall be payable by the persons who may have sold or brought the produce for sale in fhemarket area: ^ Provided further that in case of couniiercial transaction befrween ti-aders in fhe market area, the market fees shall be collected shall be collected and paid by theseller]: [Provided further also that no fees shall be levied upto 31 March, 1990 on such agricultural produce as may be specified by the State Govemment by notification in this behalf if such prpduce has been sold outside the market yard or sub- market yard by an agrieulturist to a co-operative soeiety of whichheis amember.] [Provided also that for the AgricBlture Produce brought in the market area for commercial transaction or for processing the fflarket fee shall be deppsited by the buyer or processor, as the case may be, in the market commitfee office within [fourteen] days if the buyer or processor has not submitted the permitissuedundersub-section(6)ofSection 19]. ' XXX XXX xxx' The Hon'ble Supreme Courtm tbemaitei of Orient Pdper & Industries Ltd. (supra),bas considered the power to levy market fee as prescribed under seGtion 19 ofthis very Act. Their Lordships, after having defined manufacture, came to the conclusion that market fee is not payable ifthe raw material is used for processmg, where the end user is manufacturer. ^In the case of Orient Paper & Industrie.s'Lfd.(svpra), it was observed as under: , ' ~D ^h^S^c-K . ^C^isS^S <si^^;jBife;]^<?;:iS^^Sff&S^& ^^sa /^^ A'as'^a i^j '' ^^i'A''''S^" I.^' ''sik- ^ ' -•» Y&; "17. 'Manufacture' is a trausformation of an article; which is commercially different from the one, which is Gonverted. The essence of manufacture is the change of one object to another for thepurpose ofmakingitmarketable.Theessentialpolafthusisttiat in manufacture somethmg is brought mto existeaee, which is differeiit from fhat, which origmally existed in fhe sense that the thmg produced is by itself a commercially "differerit comniodity whereas in the case ofprocessing it is not necessary t6 produce a commercially differenf article/5'ee M/s. Saras-wati Sugar Mills amt others v. Haryana State Board andothers 1992 (1) SCC 418). 22. Had it been only that the goods notified are brought into the market area to be covered by the secoad category then the staad of fhe respondents would have been acceptable. But the further condition it must be 'used for processing' shows fhat the emphasis is on end-user. In this case that makes the difference. Therefore, the appellant is correct m its stand that levy on the notified agriGulture produce being brought within market area where end-user is manufacture does not attracl: levy ofmarket fee." In view of the foregoing, the question of law involved in the instant petition is no lon.ger res nova. The facts involved in the instant case are identical to that ofmtbecaseofOrientPaper & Indiistries Ltd. (supra). Thus, the petition is allowed, accordingly. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Juc^e v Amit