Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> Supreme Court Market fees and Rural Development fees are distinct as there is no exemption from Rural Development fees mentioned in the Industrial Policy 2003, it only encompasses exemption from Market fees. MANU/SC/0627/2024 - (15 Jul 2024) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Punjab Spintex Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 526)</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">This special leave appeal assails the correctness of the judgment and orders passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court where the matter pertains to exemption from payment of Market fee and Rural Development fee sought by the Respondent herein. The Respondent company was incorporated on 26.12.2006 and set up a spinning unit at Bathinda for manufacturing cotton yarn and applied to the Appellant for grant of exemption from paying Market fee and Rural Development fee in terms of the Industrial Policy, 2003 and claimed to be similarly situated as M/s. Partap Furane Pvt. Ltd., which is also engaged in the manufacturing of cotton yarn and was granted exemption from payment of Market fee. 
The core issue which arose was whether the exemption from payment of Market fee granted under Clause (i) of the Industrial Policy 2003 (2003 Policy) of the Punjab Government can be said to include exemption from Rural Development fee as well or not. 
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the preamble of Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (1961 Act) clearly stipulates that it is a statute to provide for law relating to better Regulation of purchase, sale, storage and processing of agricultural produce. Whereas the Punjab Rural Development Act, 1987 (1987 Act) was enacted for providing relief for the loss of agricultural produce, accelerating rural development, and improving facilities for purchasers of agricultural produce. 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. Accordingly, holding that the exemption from Market fees is inclusive of Rural Development fees shall be contrary to the statutory provisions and objective behind both the Acts and the 2003 Policy. Thereby, the two fees cannot be equated or assumed to be similar for exemption purposes. 
Thus, while allowing the appeal of State of Punjab, Supreme Court ruled that Market fees and Rural Development fees are distinct and, there being no exemption from Rural Development fees mentioned in the 2003 Policy, it only encompasses exemption from Market fees in its ambit.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Industrial Policy, 2003, Market fees and Rural Development fees, Exemption</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>