MIS ARIHANT UDHYOG v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & Ors.

#1. The applicability of Section 17 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 read with Rule 58 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1963 would depend upon the question as to whether agricultural produce is bought and sold by the licensee in the market area'. The answer to the aforesaid issue would depend upon the question as to when and at what stage the title in the goods passes. If the entire transaction takes place outside the State of Rajasthan and the F ownership in the goods also passes outside Rajasthan, then the market fee is not payable. The answer to the aforesaid question would depend upon the applicability of Section 4 read with Section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, which provisions are to be applied keeping in view the terms and conditions on which the G goods are sold. That is the exercise which is done by the High Court by looking into the terms on which the goods were sold to appellant. Insofar as appellant is concerned, this was the only invoice produced before the High Court and is also made Annexure in the present proceedings. 'On going through the same, there is no fault in the approach of the High Court. [Para 14][169- H G-H; 170-A-B] MIS ARIHANT UDHYOG v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. 159

#2. In the case of appellant, intention is to be gathered from A the terms and conditions of contract, which mentions that responsibility of the seller ceases as soon as goods are delivered, which means the seller remained responsible till the delivery of goods. Therefore, intention was to retain the title in the goods till its delivery inasmuch as till that ·time it is the seller who was B responsible for the goods. This condition would clearly spell out that if the goods are destroyed or lost in transit, i.e. before their delivery, responsibility will be that of the seller. Such a responsibility can be only if the ownership remains of the seller. No other document was produced by appellant which could demonstrate the intention that property in goods passed in their C favour before these goods were delivered. Thus, insofar as judgment of the High Court in appellant's case is concerned, no fault can be found therein. However, it is to be first ascertained whether agricultural produce was bought and sold in the market area or not which is a question which needs to be determined in each case after applying the principles of law. [Paras 21, 22 and 28][172-D-G; 174-C] D

#3. It was argued by appellant that the agricultural produce bought is not meant for further sale but is processed at the factory of the licensees and, therefore, the Market Committee had no right to impose any levy and realise the market fee, which can be done only on the transactions of purchase and sale and not when the agricultural produce is bought for the purpose of manufacture or further processing. This plea of the appellant is of no consequence. In the impugned judgment the High Court has rightly repelled this argument by observing that once the goods bought are agricultural produce on which market fee is leviable in terms of Schedule attached to the Act, then the market fee is payable. If it is thereafter used as raw material for manufacturing purpose that would be of no consequence.[Paras 25, 27][173-D; 174-A-B]