JUDGMENT
A.K. Rajan, J.
1. The Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff before the Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil. The plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S. No.782 of 1986 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil for declaration that the Market Committee/defendant was not entitled to levy fees on the cashews processed and exported within 30 days and also for a permanent injunction from levying fee further, besides for return of the money paid as fee already.
2. The plaintiff/appellant herein is carrying on business in cashew kernal. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant used to purchase cashew in Kerala and bring into Kanyakumari District after processing it they used to export it within 30 days and as the entire process was over within 30 days, fee is not leviable.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the according to Section 18 of the Madras Agricultural Product Act 23 of 1959, the Market Committee has power to levy on any notified agricultural produce bought or sold within the notified marketing area at the rate of not more than 45 paise per every Rs.100/-.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that inasmuch as the entire process was over within 30 days and the cashew kernals were exported, no fee is leviable under the Act.
5. Section 18(1) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1959 which arose for consideration at the time of the admission of the Second Appeal reads as follows:
“18. Levey of (fee) by market committee: 1. The market committee shall levy a fee on any notified agricultural poduce bought or sold in the notified market area at a rate not exceeding forty-five paise and subject to a minimum of twenty-five paise for every hundred rupees of the aggregate amount, for which the notified agricultural produce is bought or sold whether for cash or for deferred payment or other valuable consideration.
Explanation I – For the purposes of this sub-section, all notified agricultural produce taken out or proposed to be taken out of a notified market area shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to be bought or sold within such area.
Explanation II – In the determination of the amount of the fees payable under this Act, any fraction of ten paise less than five paise shall be disregarded and any fraction of ten paise equal to or exceeding five paise shall be regarded as ten paise.
(2) The fee referred to in sub-section (1) shall be paid by the purchaser of the notified agricultural produce concerned:
Provided that where the purchaser of a notified agricultural produce cannot be identified, the fee shall be paid by the seller”.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant stated that as per the proviso to Section 24 of the new Act any agricultural produce brought into the notified market area for the purpose of processing only or for export, is not processed or exported therefrom within 30 days from the date of arrival, is only contrary to the present case and it is presumed to have sold the goods in the notified market area. Learned counsel further submitted that when the plaintiff has submitted all the records which prove that the entire process was over within 30 days and the kernals were removed from the market area within 30 days after process, fee is not leviable. This argument made by the learned counsel for the appellant is not acceptable; this proviso is found only under the new Act which came into force long after the date of levey. Except this, no other point was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant.
5. The proviso Section 24 of new Act only raises legal presumption that when regulated agricultural produce brought into the notified market area for processing only or for export only but in fact they were not processed or exported within 30 days, it shall be presumed that the goods have been sold within that area. It does not mean that agricultural produce processed and removed from the area within 30 days is exempt from levying any fee.
6. A reading of the Section 18 referred to above makes it clear that any notified commodity once it is bought or sold in the notified area it attracts levy of fee. Admittedly these goods are bought within the notified area and therefore, the fee is leviable. Hence, there is no illegality in levying fee.
7. In the result, the Second Appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed. No costs.