9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (7) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he addition of Rs. 25,009 on account of Market Committee fee. The assessee's counsel had applied for adjournment. The request for adjournment was rejected and the appeal is disposed of after hearing the departmental representative and perusal of records. 2. The assessee is a firm, which kept its accounts on mercantile system for the accounting year ended on 31-3-1984, relevant to the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment dated 17-5-1985 in the case of Niamat Rai Mulkh Raj Ahuja v. State of Punjab [1968] 22 STC 365. A relevant extract from that judgment, which also referred to a Supreme Court decision and an earlier decision of the Punjab High Court, has been quoted in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). On the basis of the authorities cited, the Commissioner (Appeals) co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. State of Punjab [Civil Writ No. 308 of 1963], decided by Falshaw, CJ., and Harbans Singh, J., on the 5th of November, 1963, that the market fee is not a tax. To the similar effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohammad Hussain Gullam Mohammad v. State of Bombay AIR 1962 SC 97, where a similar question was raised regarding the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939 (Act No. 22 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey do not help Mr. Srinivasan because in those cases, the market committee had been authorised to levy a cess by way of sales tax on any commercial crop bought or sold in the notified area. There was no question of the levy of the market fee for services rendered. Thus, the so-called cess or fee being in fact a tax, the learned Judges of the Mysore High Court rightly took the view that the same we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
