Case: Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti  Vs. Ved Ram

of the said provisional assessment the trader would be entitled to tender a valid rebuttal to the statutory presumption under Section 17 of the Adhiniyam and argue that no sale having taken place within the notified area, it was not liable to pay any market fee on the movement of goods. If the explanation offered by the trader was accepted the gate pass would be issued without insisting upon any payment of the fee. But if the evidence laid by the trader is not prima facie accepted by the Mandi Samiti the trader or the dealer can be compelled to pay market fee before issue of gate pass to him. The Court further held that if the trader makes the payment without demand the matter ends and the issue finalised. In case, however, he raises a protest then the assessment shall be taken to be provisional in nature making it obligatory for the trader to pay the fee before obtaining the requisite gate pass. After protest has been lodged the provisional assessment shall be followed by a final assessment within a time frame. The Court prescribed a period of two months in respect of each such transaction enabling the aggrieved party to challenge the same under the Act or under the general law of the land before the appropriate fora. 11. The above procedure has been working effectively for the past decade and a half and ought to have been effective in the instant case also. The unfortunate part, however, was that the respondent-company did not respect the procedure stipulated under the above orders of this Court. It did not apply for and obtain gate passes for removal of its goods. The Samiti, therefore, had no occasion to pass any provisional or final order based on the material adduced before it. It is only when the respondent-company filed a declaration that the removal of the stocks pursuant to consignment note No.94 dated 14th May, 2004 in favour of Anand Sales Corporation at Ahmedabad was a stock transfer and did not require a gate pass that the Samiti issued a show-cause notice asking the respondent-company to furnish the documents with regard to the production, sale, purchase, movement and storage of the goods. Based on the figures furnished pursuant to the said show-cause notice the Samiti determined the market fee and the development fee and raised a demand for payment thereof with a direction to the company to follow the prescribed procedure for removal of goods from the mandi area. The revisional authority, as seen above, upheld the assessment of the fee and the consequential directions issued by the Samiti. The High Court, however, completely overlooked the effect of the orders passed by this Court in the two cases mentioned earlier and brought in a new mechanism which could in its opinion be more effective, in dealing with the situation that arose so very often between the Samiti on the one hand and the traders on the other. The High Court failed to appreciate that it was not on virgin ground. The matter was fully covered by the decisions of this Court. Further repair of the procedure and the mechanism so provided could only be under the orders of this Court. The High Court ought to have left it to this Court to determine as to whether the mechanism and procedure provided by our orders required any modification, and if so, in what form and to what extent. Instead of doing that, the High Court embarked upon an exercise which was not necessary especially when the same did no service to judicial discipline. 12. The High Court was also in error in holding that even when the movement of goods without gate passes may have been in violation of the rules regulating the issue of such passes, any such violation could only call for a penalty under the said rules. Assessment of market fee on the removal of such goods from the mandi area was, according to the High Court, a different matter unrelated to the breach of the rules requiring the traders to remove goods only on the authority of validly issued gate passes. The High Court appears to have overlooked the fact that if gate passes are required to be obtained under the rules, removal of stocks without applying for such gate passes and without furnishing prima facie evidence of proof that there was no sale of the goods involved, was a reason enough for the Mandi Samiti to demand payment of the market fee on the stocks that were removed. The absence of gate passes was tantamount to removal of the goods in breach of the relevant rules and also in breach of the directions issued by this Court in the two cases mentioned above. A dealer who adopted such dubious procedure and means could not complain of a failure of opportunity to produce material in support of its claim that no sale was involved. No opportunity to a dealer who was acting in defiance of the rules and removing the goods without any intimation and permission of the Samiti could be granted for the occasion to grant such an opportunity would arise only when the trader applied for the issue of a gate pass. As a matter of fact, the goods having been taken away without gate passes and without any material to show that there was no sale, the Samiti could demand payment of the market fee and leave it open to the respondent-trader to claim refund by rebutting the presumption that the removal was pursuant to a sale. At any rate, the Samiti and the Deputy Director have concurrently held that the respondent-company has not been able to rebut the presumption under Section 17 of the Adhiniyam. We see no reason to interfere with that finding especially when the appraisal of the evidence by the said two authorities has not been shown to us to be in any way perverse to warrant interference with the same.13.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]The High Court was also in error in holding that even when the movement of goods without gate passes may have been in violation of the rules regulating the issue of such passes, any such violation could only call for a penalty under the said rules. Assessment of market fee on the removal of such goods from the mandi area was, according to the High Court, a different matter unrelated to the breach of the rules requiring the traders to remove goods only on the authority of validly issued gate passes. The High Court appears to have overlooked the fact that if gate passes are required to be obtained under the rules, removal of stocks without applying for such gate passes and without furnishing prima facie evidence of proof that there was no sale of the goods involved, was a reason enough for the Mandi Samiti to demand payment of the market fee on the stocks that were removed. The absence of gate passes was tantamount to removal of the goods in breach of the relevant rules and also in breach of the directions issued by this Court in the two cases mentioned above. A dealer who adopted such dubious procedure and means could not complain of a failure of opportunity to produce material in support of its claim that no sale was involved. No opportunity to a dealer who was acting in defiance of the rules and removing the goods without any intimation and permission of the Samiti could be granted for the occasion to grant such an opportunity would arise only when the trader applied for the issue of a gate pass. As a matter of fact, the goods having been taken away without gate passes and without any material to show that there was no sale, the Samiti could demand payment of the market fee and leave it open to the respondent-trader to claim refund by rebutting the presumption that the removal was pursuant to a sale. At any rate, the Samiti and the Deputy Director have concurrently held that the respondent-company has not been able to rebut the presumption under Section 17 of the Adhiniyam. We see no reason to interfere with that finding especially when the appraisal of the evidence by the said two authorities has not been shown to us to be in any way perverse to warrant interference with the same.