9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 861X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed the application. Neither the arguments were discussed and analysed nor the contents of three notes/letters were discussed. Scope of exemption under the 2003 Policy - HELD THAT:- The 2003 Policy does not specifically exempt Rural Development fees and therefore, such an argument by the Respondent is highly presumptive, far-fetched and a clear attempt at over-reaching the scope of the 2003 Policy. If such an assumption is allowed, it would considerably broaden the canvas of the incentives available under the 2003 Policy, which was never intended. In fact, such a loose interpretation of the State policies would lead to an ambiguity to the State s intent and render it opposite to the public policy - the exemption from Market fees is inclusive of Rural Development fees shall be contrary to the statutory provisions and objective behind both the Acts as well as the 2003 Policy. Thereby, the two fees cannot be equated or assumed to be same or similar for the purposes of exemption. Effect of communication made by the State via various notes/letters - HELD THAT:- From an in-depth analysis of the statutes and policies produced, it is apparent that no unit, other than those approved as Mega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication. a. Units that have availed of the benefit under the Mega Projects Scheme but have now sought benefits under the 2003 Policy e.g. Cotton Units seeking exemption from market fee, would be eligible for incentives and concessions only under one specific package i.e. ether the Industrial Policy of 2003 or the standard package of the incentives of Mega Projects finalized in November, 2007 as per their choice. 4. The High Court, vide impugned order dated 27.01.2010, dismissed the Writ Petition in the following manner: xxx xxx 4. Learned counsel for the State also states that Market Fee will also cover Rural Development Fee and further action as per above decision will be taken within one month. 5. In view of above, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this petition at this stage. 6. Dismissed as not pressed. 5. Thereafter, the Appellant, being aggrieved by the aforesaid statement made by the Counsel on instructions, filed C.M. No. 3144 of 2010 in CWP No. 14847 of 2009 seeking modification in order dated 27.01.2010. In the application, the Appellant stated that the earlier statement made by the counsel for the State, on the instructions from the officers of the Indust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d valoram basis, at the rate of rupees two for every one hundred rupees, in respect of the agricultural produce, bought or sold in the notified market area. (2) The fee levied under sub-section (1) shall be paid by the dealer in such manner as may be prescribed and shall be realised by a Market Committee established under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (Punjab Act 23 of 1961) : Provided that the burden of the fee shall be passed on by the dealer by adding it to the purchase price recoverable by him from the next purchaser of the agricultural produce or the goods processed or manufactured out of it. [(2-A) If any dealer fails to pay the amount of the fee levied under subsection (1), he shall, in addition to the amount of fee be liable to pay interest on the amount of fee due from him at the rate of eighteen per centum per annum from the date of default.] (3) The arrears of fee levied under subsection (1) shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. Section 6 Constitution of Fund (1) There shall be constituted a fund to be called the Punjab Rural Development Fund which shall vest in the Board. (2) The Fund constituted under subsection (1) shall be administered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted from Market fees and not exempted from Rural Development fees, including the company M/s Partap Furane Pvt. Ltd. with which a similarity as being claimed by the Respondent. 14. On the other hand, Mr. Aman Lekhi, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent argued that the expression Market fees has been used in the Policy of 2003 because both the 1961 Act and the 1987 Act contemplate levy of fees in a notified market area and not in the sense of fees levied under the 1961 Act as has been argued by the Appellant State. Respondent has extensively argued that there is a clear convergence of interests of both the 1961 Act and 1987 Act and that the 2003 Policy exempts the recovery of the fees under both laws as incentives for the Development of Agro and Food Processing Industries. 15. Respondent further argued that the High Court had rightly dismissed the application for review of the Order dated 27.01.2010 by relying upon Note dated 28.08.2001 which was issued by the Punjab Rural Development Board, Chandigarh (recording therein the decision of the Chief Minister of Punjab) that exemption on an item from Market fees will automatically be extended to fees under the 1987 Act. Since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levied under the 1961 Act and does not grant exemption from the Rural Development fees under the 1987 Act, has not been adjudicated by the High Court on merits. The said adjudication could not happen as the Counsel for the State had stated before the High Court that Market fee will also cover Rural Development fee and the High Court dismissed the petition as not pressed. This is pertinently where the trail of errors began. However, it did not come to an end over there. Even in the modification application preferred by the State, the High Court failed to delve into the merits of the matter and rather instantly went on to rely on the letters dated 09.10.2001, 28.08.2001 and 10.09.2001 referred by the Respondent, thereby dismissing the application for modification. The High Court, only recorded the submissions of the State counsel and thereafter referring to the three notes/letters of 2001 of the Agriculture Department and dismissed the application. Neither the arguments were discussed and analysed nor the contents of three notes/letters were discussed. Scope of exemption under the 2003 Policy 20. Appellant State had argued that the Market fees and Rural Development fees are collecte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the purposes of exemption. Effect of communication made by the State via various notes/letters 25. As mentioned before, the Respondent has heavily relied on letters dated 09.10.2001, 28.08.2001 and 10.09.2001 published by the Department of Agriculture to seek such an exemption. The Appellant has submitted before us that the letter dated 28.08.2001 was only issued by the office Superintendent in the Appellant s office and was not a decision by the Government and has consequently been withdrawn as not being an authorized letter vide letter dated 02.11.2010. 26. It is apparent that the letter dated 02.11.2010 has been issued by the Department of Agriculture and duly withdrew the Note dated 09.10.2001. With regard to the Respondent s argument that the letter dated 28.08.2001 still remains applicable as not explicitly withdrawn, we note that the Memo dated 09.10.2001 itself referred and relied upon Note dated 28.08.2001 and, hence, any subsequent communication withdrawing Memo dated 09.10.2001 shall ipso facto apply to the earlier referred letters as well including the note dated 28.08.2001. 27. In furtherance, the Department of Agriculture has also issued a Memo dated 21.02.2011 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
