LexMUMBAI AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTED & ANR. versus HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 7 S.C.R. 130 A MUMBAI AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET B COMMITTED & ANR. V. HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3042 of 2008) APRIL ~~9. 2008 [S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing c (Regulation) Act, 1963 - s. 34 A and 62 - Notification adding certain items in Schedule to the Act - Market Committee collecting market fee and supeNision charges - Collection challenged - High Court upht31d collection of market fee but disapproved collection of supeNision charges or the interest D accrued thereon - On appeal, Held: Order of High Court is ;ustified - SupeNision charges were not leviable - It was on the State Government and not the Market Committee to justify the levy - State has failed to prove the foundational facts or the basis of calculation thereof on the basis of exercise of its power- Principle of Equivalence - Principle of restitution. E Fee - Market fee and supeNision fee - Distinction between. State of Maharashtra, by a Notification, added some items in the Schedule appended to Maharashtra F Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963. 'Vanaspati' was one of the items. Appellant-Market Committee started collecting market fee as also supervision charges on all notified agricultural produces. It .was alleged that the respondent No. 1 (a dealer in G 'Vanaspati') did not get itself registered thereunder. H Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed writ petitions cqntending that they were not liable to pay any market fee or supervision charges. High Court held that the I 130 I « . " MUMBAI A.P.M.C. & ANR. v. HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED & ORS. 131 respondents were liable to pay the market fee, but the ·A appellant-Committee was not entitled to collect supervision charges or the interest accrued thereon. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment. Levy of market fee and supervision charges stand on different footings. Whereas market fee is payable B on the transactions carried out in the market area, the power to realize the supervision charges is vested in the c State. For the said purpose, it has to issue a general or special order. Staff must be appointed by the State for the purpose of carrying out supervision of the market areas. Only when the pre-requisites contained in Section 34A of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing D (Regulation) Act, 1963 are fulfilled, the question of recovery of such charges from the person purchasing such produce in such market or market area would arise. [Paras 8 and 16] [138-H; 139-A; 135-G; 136-A] 1 ;2 The power to recover the charges for the E supervisory staff employed at the expenses of a section of the industry is not a general power. It is provided for specifically in terms of the Act. When the statute mandates that the cost of supervision would be borne by the licensee, it does not constitute levy of tax. It may be a part F of contract. It may have to be paid as a liability to comply with the provisions of the statute and statutory Rules validly made. The cost has to be determined. It may have to be apportioned. It cannot be levied or calculated in such a manner so as to cause unjust enrichment in favour of G the State. The quantum of recovery, however, need not be based on mathematical exactitude as such cost is levied having regard to the liability of all the licensees or a section of them. It would, however, require some calculation.[Paras 11 and 12] [137-A, 8, C] H 132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 7 S.C.R. A 1.3 A finding of fact has been arrived at by the High Court that no service was b1eing rendered by the State. If no service is being rendered, even no fee could have been levied. [Para 13) [137-D] Jindal Stainless Ltd. and Anr. v. · State of Haryana and B Ors. 2006 (7) SCC 241 - followed. 1.4 The principle of equivalence is the foundation for levy of a fee. It must be held to be the foundation of a statutory charge like supervisory charges. It was for the State to prove it. Once the State has failed to bring on C record the foundational faclts, it is not for the appellant who is merely a statutory authority for collecting the same as an agent of the State to contend that the same was payable. The State of Maharashtra is not before this Court. Cost of supervision, if borne by the State has to be D recovered by it. The burden was, there
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.