Supreme Court Awards Rs. 6 Lakh to Man Acquitted After 6 Years, Faults UP Police Probe  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Can Restore Power on 50% Deposit in Arbitrary Theft Assessments  ||  Supreme Court: Cooperative Society Cannot Deny RTI Records as Personal if Registrar Can Access Them  ||  SC: CoC Cannot Withdraw Approved Resolution Plan Over Improved Corporate Debtor Finances  ||  Delhi High Court: 24-Week Limit Alone Cannot Restrict Medical Termination of Pregnancy  ||  Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge to 18% GST on Online Legal Database Services  ||  Madras High Court: FIR Registration Does Not Decide Guilt; Prior Hearing of Accused Not Required  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Speedy Prosecution Sanction Process in Sabarimala Gold Theft Case  ||  Allahabad HC: Missing RT-PCR Report Cannot Bar COVID-19 Compensation if Records Confirm Infection  ||  MP High Court Directs Indore Police to Deploy Volunteers for Reporting Noise Pollution Violations    

State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Punjab Spintex Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 526) - (Supreme Court) (15 Jul 2024)

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

Civil

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.

Tags : INDUSTRIAL POLICY   2003   MARKET FEES AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT FEES   EXEMPTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved