9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Bihar AIR 1977 Pat 236 : 1977 Pat LJR 8, held that the sugar factories engaged in purchasing sugarcane and selling sugar and sugar molasses are liable to pay market fee under the Act. This judgment was challenged in this Court. 2. The Appellants filed Title Suit No. 84 of 1977 for restraining the Bihar Agricultural Marketing Board (for short the Board ) from realising market fee. An order of injunction was passed and ultimately the said title suit was decreed. In the appeal the order of the Trial Court was set aside. Aggrieved against the order of the first Appellate Court, the Appellants filed Second Appeal No. 516 of 1993 which was dismissed. The Appellants, being aggrieved, filed Special Leave Petition(C) No. 16487 of 2001 in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubject to further orders to be passed by the Court. Finally, the High Court upheld the amended provisions (Section 4-B of the Act) against which appeals were also filed in this Court. 5. A Constitution Bench of this Court decided the appeal filed by Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. as well as that of the Appellants and Others vide its judgment dated 10.8.1999 titled Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1999)9 SCC 620. It was held by this Court that the provisions of the Act were not applicable in the case of sugar factories engaged in sugarcane and selling sugar and molasses. However, it was held that the operation of the judgment will be prospective and not retrospective. It was specifically stated that the market fee paid in the past will n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be entitled to get refund of all the appropriate amounts of market fee not passed on. In our view, it is not possible to accept this contention as years have rolled by since the impugned market fees have been levied by the different Market Committees in the State of Bihar. In the normal course of events, no prudent businessman/manufacturer would ever bear the burden of such compulsory fee or tax to be paid from his own pocket. Even otherwise reserving such liberty would create unnecessary complication and may give rise to a spate of avoidable litigations in the hierarchy of proceedings. Under these circumstances, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, we deem if fit to direct in exercise our powers under Arti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther words, market fees paid in the past shall not be refunded. Similarly, market fees not collected in the past also shall not be collected hereafter. The impugned judgments of the High Court in this group of sugar matters will stand set aside as aforesaid. The writ petition directly filed before this Court also will be required to be allowed in the aforesaid terms. 6. From a conjoint reading of the aforesaid three paragraphs, it is clear that this Court gave the directions in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution that the decision shall be prospective in operation, meaning thereby that after the pronouncement of the judgment all future transactions of purchase of sugarcane by the sugar factories concerned in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... never bear the burden of such compulsory fee or tax to be paid from his own pocket. That reserving of such liberty would create unnecessary complications and may give rise to a spate of avoidable litigations. 7. In Para 113, a rider was added that if any of the market committees has been restrained by an order of the Court from recovering the market fee from the Appellants or any of the Appellants obtained stay of the payment of market fee then for the period during which such stay was in operation and consequently market fee was not paid on the transactions covered by such stay orders, the Market Committees concerned would not be entitled to recover such market fees. 8. After the rendering of the decision by this Court in Belsund Sug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nse that the points which have been decided earlier can be re-heard again. It was held that there was neither any error of law apparent on the face of the record nor any similar legal infirmity justifying review of the order dated 30.8.2001*. 11. With the help of learned Counsel for the parties, we have gone through the grounds on which the review had been sought by the Appellants of the order dated 30.8.2001*. In our opinion, the High Court has rightly rejected the same by observing that the Appellants wanted to re-argue the points which had been rejected by the High Court by its order dated 30.8.2001* against which the special leave petition, preferred by the Appellants, had already been dismissed. Though the review may have been maint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
