Case: G.Giridhar Prabhu  Vs. Agricultural Produce Market Comtt

the subsequently action or inaction of the legislature for causes as to legislative approval or disapproval of judicial interpretation. It has been held that if the legislature by taking note of the judgment amends the statute appropriately by not giving any different meaning from the view taken by the Court, with some justification, it can be said that the legislature had accepted expressly or by implication the judicial interpretation. It was submitted that by amending the Schedule to include cashew kernel the State Government had accepted the fact that cashew nut and cashew kernel were two separate and distinct commodities and now they would be precluded from contending that these were not two separate and distinct commodities. 15. Reliance was next placed upon the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. N.C. Budharaja and Co., reported in 1993(204) ITR 413. It was submitted that the word "production" has a wider connotation than the word "manufacture". In this case it is held that every manufacture would be characterised as production but every production would not amount to manufacture. It is held that when the word "production" or "produce" are used in juxtaposition with the word "manufacture", they may bringing into existence new goods by a process which may or may not amount to manufacture. It is held that these words also take in all the by-products, intermediate products and residual products which emerge in the course of manufacture of goods. 16. Respondents do not dispute that cashew nut and cashew kernel are two separate and distinct items/commodities. The respondents submission is that the appellant continue to be a trader even in the sale transaction as they had bought/imported for purpose of processing and then selling. Respondents contend that merely because, by a process or by manufacture, a different item comes into being does not make the processor or manufacturer a Producer. The contend that a "Producer" is one who produces the initial Notified Agricultural Produce. 17. We are unable to agree with the submissions of Mr. Sarangan. As can be seen from the Preamble the Act is to provide for better regulation of marketing of agricultural produce. In the Act certain exemptions have been given to producer which exemptions have not been either to importer or an Exporter or a Trader. These exemptions, therefore, have been given a producer because the Producer is the person who produces the main agricultural produce. The main agricultural produce, which may be a Notified Agricultural Produce, could then be converted into various other Notified Agricultural Produce/s by subjecting the same to a process or manufacture. The person who processes or manufactures a different Notified Agricultural Produce would not be a producer. To be noted that an importer imports or cause goods to be imported into the market area for the purpose of selling, processing, manufacturing or for any other purpose, except for ones own domestic consumption. Thus, it is clear that a person, who imports would not be a producer. The import would be for purpose of selling or processing or manufacturing or for any other purpose except for ones own domestic consumption. Similarly, the term "Exporter" makes it clear that an exporter is not a Producer. A trader is also is a person who buys Notified Agricultural Produce for the purpose of selling or processing or manufacturing or for any other purpose except for the purpose of domestic consumption. The definition of the term "Trader" is not a restrictive definition. It is not restricted to a person who only buys. If a person buys for domestic or personal consumption, then he would not be a trader. it is only when a person buys for the purpose of selling or processing or manufacturing that he would become a trader. Thus a person may buy, process or manufacture and then sell. When he processes or manufactures Notified Agricultural Produce which he had bought, it may change its character and become another Notified Agricultural Produce. Thus, by way of examples, a person may buy milk and through processes makes it into butter and/or cheese or a person may buy hides and skins and by a process make it into leather. However, merely because a distinct and separate Notified Agricultural Produce comes into existence does not mean that the person who bought, processed and sold ceases to be a Trader. The term "Trader" encumbrances not just the purchase transaction but the entire transaction of purchase, processing, manufacturing and selling. 18. In this behalf the case of Himachal Pradesh Marketing Board v. Shankar Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., reported in 1997(2) SCC 496, is relevant. Under the Himachal Pradesh Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1969, licences were required to be taken for purchase, sale, storage or processing of agricultural produce and market fee was also payable. Producers or growers however did not require a licence and did not have to any market fees. The respondent-Company (therein) was producing "Katha", a specified agricultural produce. They did this by processing Khairwood. They claimed (like the appellants in this case) that as producers they did not need a licence and market fees were not payable by them. This Court negatived this contention by holding that a person producing a Notified Agricultural Produce by processing a natural product does not fulfil the requirements of being producer/grower. It was held that the clause of the Act made it clear that only the actual grower/producer of the natural agricultural produce were to be befitted. Of course the definition of the terms in that Act are different. However in our view the basic principle is the same. It applies to this case also. 19. We also see no substance in the submission that if Section 65(2-A)(ii) did not apply, then Section 65(2-A)(iv) would apply. Section 65(2-A)(iv) is residuary clause. It would only that the appellants are Traders they squarely fall within Section 65(2-A)(iii). IN fact, they may also fall within Section 65(2-A(ia). As they fall within these two clauses there is no question of the residuary clause applying.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]17. We are unable to agree with the submissions of Mr. Sarangan. As can be seen from the Preamble the Act is to provide for better regulation of marketing of agricultural produce. In the Act certain exemptions have been given to producer which exemptions have not been either to importer or an Exporter or a Trader. These exemptions, therefore, have been given a producer because the Producer is the person who produces the main agricultural produce. The main agricultural produce, which may be a Notified Agricultural Produce, could then be converted into various other Notified Agricultural Produce/s by subjecting the same to a process or manufacture. The person who processes or manufactures a different Notified Agricultural Produce would not be a producer. To be noted that an importer imports or cause goods to be imported into the market area for the purpose of selling, processing, manufacturing or for any other purpose, except for ones own domestic consumption. Thus, it is clear that a person, who imports would not be a producer. The import would be for purpose of selling or processing or manufacturing or for any other purpose except for ones own domestic consumption. Similarly, the term "Exporter" makes it clear that an exporter is not a Producer. A trader is also is a person who buys Notified Agricultural Produce for the purpose of selling or processing or manufacturing or for any other purpose except for the purpose of domestic consumption. The definition of the term "Trader" is not a restrictive definition. It is not restricted to a person who only buys. If a person buys for domestic or personal consumption, then he would not be a trader. it is only when a person buys for the purpose of selling or processing or manufacturing that he would become a trader. Thus a person may buy, process or manufacture and then sell. When he processes or manufactures Notified Agricultural Produce which he had bought, it may change its character and become another Notified Agricultural Produce. Thus, by way of examples, a person may buy milk and through processes makes it into butter and/or cheese or a person may buy hides and skins and by a process make it into leather. However, merely because a distinct and separate Notified Agricultural Produce comes into existence does not mean that the person who bought, processed and sold ceases to be a Trader. The term "Trader" encumbrances not just the purchase transaction but the entire transaction of purchase, processing, manufacturing and selling.We also see no substance in the submission that if Section 65(2-A)(ii) did not apply, then Section 65(2-A)(iv) would apply. Section 65(2-A)(iv) is residuary clause. It would only that the appellants are Traders they squarely fall within Section 65(2-A)(iii). IN fact, they may also fall within Section 65(2-A(ia). As they fall within these two clauses there is no question of the residuary clause applying.