Supreme Court Appeals: Exemption from Market Fee and Rural Development Fee Under 2003 Policy

Case Note & Summary

These appeals challenge the Punjab & Haryana High Court's judgments concerning the exemption from Market fee and Rural Development fee sought by the Respondent under the 2003 Industrial Policy. The High Court dismissed the Respondent's petition and modification application. The core issue is whether the exemption from Market fee includes Rural Development fee. The Supreme Court concludes that these fees are distinct, collected under different statutes, and the 2003 Policy does not grant exemption from Rural Development fee.

1. Background of Appeals

Appeals challenge Punjab & Haryana High Court's decisions dated 27.01.2010 and 24.09.2010 in Civil W.P. No. 14847 of 2009 and C.M. No. 3144 of 2010.

2. Respondent's Claim

Respondent sought exemption from Market fee and Rural Development fee under the 2003 Industrial Policy. Respondent compared itself to M/s Partap Furane Pvt. Ltd., which had received such exemption.

3. High Court Proceedings

High Court dismissed the petition based on the State Counsel's statement. Appellant sought modification, arguing the distinction between Market fee and Rural Development fee. High Court relied on Agriculture Department letters supporting Respondent's stand and dismissed the modification application.

4. Core Issue

Whether exemption from Market fee under the 2003 Policy includes Rural Development fee.

5. Statutory Provisions

Market Fee: Levied under Section 23 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961. Rural Development Fund: Levied under Section 5 and constituted under Section 6 of the Punjab Rural Development Act, 1987.

6. Provisions of the 2003 Policy

Exempts Market fees on purchases by agro and food processing units, not explicitly covering Rural Development fees.

7. Arguments

Appellant: Market fees and Rural Development fees are distinct, collected under different statutes with different objectives. Respondent: Argued convergence of interests in both Acts and that 2003 Policy exempts both fees.

8. High Court's Error

Failed to adjudicate merits and relied on Agriculture Department letters.

9. Analysis of Statutes and Policies

Different objects of 1961 and 1987 Acts. No unit, except Mega Projects, exempted from Rural Development fee without explicit provision.

10. Supreme Court's Conclusion

Market fees and Rural Development fees are distinct. 2003 Policy only exempts Market fees. Appeals allowed, High Court's orders set aside, Civil W.P. No. 14847 of 2009 dismissed.

11. Final Order

Appeals allowed, High Court's orders dated 27.01.2010 and 24.09.2010 set aside. Civil W.P. No. 14847 of 2009 dismissed.