STATE OF MYSORE & ANR. versus PENDAKUR VIRUPANNA SETTY & SONS & ANR. ETC.

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 526 · Decided: 27-04-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.826 
.B 
c 
1> 
G 
STATE OF MYSORE & ANR. 
vs. 
PENDAKUR VIRUPANNA SETTY & SONS & ANR. ETC. 
April 27, 1971 
(J. M. SHELAT, A. N. GROVER AND I. D. DuA, JJ.J 
Andhra State Act (30 of 1953) and States Reorganisation Act, 1956-
Parts of Madras State made part of Mysore State-Laws in Madras State 
made applicable to Bel/ary area and Madras Area-Mysore Adaptation of 
Laws Order 1956, and Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899-'Madras Area', 
whaJ is. 
As a result of the Andbra State Act, 1953 a part of the Bellary district 
of Madras became part of the former State of Mysore, and as a result 
of the State Re-organisation Act, 1956 a psrt of the South Kanara district 
of Madras became part of the Mysore State. Under sections in those two 
Acts providing for the continuance of laws, s. II of tho Madras Com-
mercial Crops Market Act, 1933, as it stood before its amendment in 1955 
by the Madras Legislature, was in force in tho Bellary area of the Mysore 
State, and the . section as amended in 1955, was in force in the South 
Kanara area. 
Section 11(1), before its omondmont in 1955, empowered 
a Market Committee to levy fees, but after amendment, the levy was a 
eess by way of sales tax in addition to tho sales tax levied under tho Madras 
General Salos Tax Act. Even though no notification, as required by the 
section, was issued by tho Government of Madras, tho South Kanara 
Market Committee was levying tho coss and continued to do so after the 
area became a part of Mysore. In order to validate the levy and to enable 
the Committee to continue the levy, tho Madras Commercial Crops (Mysore 
Amendment and Validation of Levy of Coss) Act was psssod by the Mysore 
Legislature in 1958. By the Mysore Amendment Act, a now section 11(1) 
was substituted for tho s. 11(1) as in force in the Madras area. This new 
sub-section also empowered tho levy of cess by way of sales tax, in addi· 
lion to the sales tax under the general sales tax law. 
The respondents were served a notice by the Secretary of the Bellary 
Market Committee to pay cess on groundnut seeds bought or sold in the 
notified area of the committee in the Bellary area of Mysore. As the res-
pondents failed to comply with the demands, complaints were filed against 
them. The respondents filed petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution 
challenging the validity of the levy and the High Court quashed the demand 
on the ground that what was being demanded was payment of sales-tax and 
since the maximum rate authorised by s. lS of the Central Sales Tax Act, 
1956, read with s. 5(4) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, had already been 
imposed, the Market Committee could not make a further levy. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD: (I) Section 11(1) as substituted by the Mysore Legishture in 
1958, did not apply to the Bellary area and was confined only to th• 'Madras 
area', which meant, that part of the South Kanara district which became 
part of the Mysore State, because, 
H 
(a) The statement of objects and reasons of the Mysore Amen~rricnt 
shows that the changes in law and the validation provisions v,.·ere co:i.fint:'d 
only to the levy of a cess by way of sales-tax by the South Kanara Market 
Committee. 
MYSORE •• p, v. SETTY (Grover ,J.) 
(b) The Mysore Amendment was made applicable only to the 'Madras 
area' and this area could have reference only to the South Kanara area 
of the Mysore State, since: (i) By the Mysore Adaptation of Laws Order, 
1956, read with s. 7(1) of the States Re-organisation Act, 'Madras area' 
under the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899 (applicable to Mysore Act) 
means, the South Kanara area of the Mysore State; and (ii) it would be 
stretching language too far to include in the expression, 'Bellary area' 
what bad ceased to be a part of the Madras State in 1953, long before the 
Mysore Amendment in 1958. 
(c) In s. 154 of the Mysore Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regula-
tion) Act, 1966, it is stated that the Madras Commercial Crops Market 
Act as in force in the Bellary district, and the same Act as in force in the 
Madras area was being repealed, showing that the 'Bellary ar~a· was not\ 
the same as the 'Madras area' of the Mysore State. 
(d) The Mysore Amendment Act specifies the rates of only two com-
modities, namely, arecanut and coconut in the 'Madras area' and these two 
commodities figure as the principal commercial crops in the bye laws of 
the South Kanara Markel Committee, whereas they are not included as 
commercial crops in the bye laws

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.