Saiyed Saghir Ahmad ORDER
Saiyed Saghir Ahmad, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Agricultural Market Committee (for short, 'the Committee') which is the appellant before us is a statutory body created under the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 ('the Act') while the respondent is a licenced trader dealing in "Copra" (dried coconut kernel) which it imports from various places in the State of Kerala for manufacturing coconut oil.
3. "Copra" is a notified agricultural produce and, therefore, the Committee has a right to levy and realise the market fee on all transactions of purchase and sale provided the transactions take place within the notified area of the Committee.
4. By orders dated 2.3.89 and 28.3.89, the Assessing Authority who is also the Secretary of the Committee levied the market fee on the respondent who challenged those orders in appeals (No. 1 of 1989 and No. 2 of 1989). filed under Section 12E but the appeals were dismissed on the technical ground of non-compliance with Section 12E(2) under which the whole amount of market fee had to be deposited before filing the appeal.
5. The respondent then approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition 12199 of 1991 which was allowed and the appeals were directed to be entertained provided the respondent deposited half of the amount of market fee and furnished bank guarantee for the remaining half. The appeals were consequently taken up for hearing but were dismissed compelling the respondent to file a revision under Section 12F of the Act which was dismissed by the Director of Marketing by order dated 8.11.93. The respondent then approached the High Court by another appeal under Section 12G which was allowed by judgment dated 18.4.96 and consequently the matter has come to this Court.
6. In order to levy market fee on the transaction of sale and purchase by the respondent, the Assessing Authority had relied upon Rule 74(2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Market Rules, 1969 (for short, 'Rules') and Explanation to Bye-law 24(5) of the Bye-laws of the Committee which contained a statutory presumption that if a notified agricultural produce was weighed or measured within the notified area of the Committee, it shall be deemed to have been purchased or sold within that area. The appellate as also the revisional authorities had also relied upon this provision and had held that since "Copra" which was imported from the State of Kerala was, admittedly, weighed at Hyderabad, it shall be deemed to had been sold to the respondent at Hyderabad and, consequently, the respondent was liable to pay market fee on all the transactions of sale/purchase of "Copra" during the period in question.
7. The High Court held that the provisions contained in Rule 74(2) and Bye-law 24(5) relating to the 'rule of presumption' were beyond the scope of the Act and, consequently, were bad in law. It also held on the basis of evidence and material on record that the transaction of sale/purchase took place in the State of Kerala and not at Hyderabad and, therefore, the authorities under the Act were not justified in levying the market fee on those