2000 (8) TMI 1061 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Whether a market committee can levy market fee and collect rural development fund on goods brought within its jurisdiction by a dealer after paying fees to another committee? Whether non-submission of prescribed forms disentitles a dealer from claiming exemption from payment of fees?

Analysis:
1. The petitioners, engaged in rice processing, challenged market committees seeking fees on goods purchased from yards outside their jurisdiction despite already paying fees. Respondents justified actions based on non-submission of prescribed forms LL and E, claiming the petitioners failed to provide proof of fee payment.

2. Documents revealed a previous court order deeming the time limit for form submission as directory. However, a Supreme Court decision made the submission of forms mandatory, as per rule 30 of the 1962 Rules. The petitioners argued they had paid fees at purchase and should have been given a chance to prove form submission.

3. The Supreme Court clarified the conditions for claiming exemption: payment of market fee in a specific area, submission of form LL within 20 days of bringing goods to the market area, and providing necessary documentation. Failure to meet these conditions disallowed exemption, as seen in the case of the first respondent.

4. The court directed the petitioners to provide evidence of form submission within one month. Respondent No. 3 was instructed to review the evidence and make a decision within the subsequent month, following the Supreme Court's guidelines. Failure to provide evidence would allow respondent No. 3 to recover the fees with interest.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, relevant legal provisions, court decisions, and the final directives provided by the court for resolution.