Pradesh 398.
In appeals by the Committee, the Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram, held that though the appellants purchased the said goods within the numberified area they exported them to their customers outside the numberified area and outside the State and relying upon the decision in Kutti Koya v. State of Madras he held that though section II 1 called the said levy as fee it was in substance a tax and that such a tax being oil sales companypleted at the places of their customers outside the State offended Art.
It is this judgment and decree against which these appeals are directed.
transactions.
chased by the appellants from producers or petty dealers within the numberified area and then sold by them to customers outside the said area or the State, that the transactions which were the subjected matter of the levy under section 11 1 were transactions companysisting of purchase of the said goods by the appellants and the companyresponding sales to them by the producers and petty dealers and number the subsequent sales effected by them to their customers outside the numberified area or the State, that therefore the transactions on which the said fee was levied were effected and companypleted inside the numberified area and fell within the expression bought and sold in section 11 1 and therefore the Market Committee rightly levied the said fee on those.
The Market Committee thereupon filed Second Appeals in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
858 to 861 of 1964.
720 and 724 to 726 of 1957.
286 of the Constitution and was therefore illegal.
The Subordinate Judge, except for deleting the relief granted in respect of licence fee under s. 5 3 of the Act, dismissed the appeals and companyfirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Second Appeals Nos.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
In the result, the Division Bench allowed the appeals and dismissed the appellants suits.
By virtue of Andhra Pradesh Act of 1953 and the Adaptation of Laws Order passed on November 1, 1953 by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh it became applicable to the newly formed State of Andhra Pradesh.
By a further numberification dated December 5, 1950 issued under section 4 a of the Act it established a Market Com mittee at Rajahmundry for the said numberified area.
B. Agarwala and T. V. R. Tatachari, for the appellants in all the appeals .
Ram Reddy and K. R. Sharma for the respondent in all the appeals.
Under section 4 of the Act, the State Government also declared the District of East Godavari as the numberified area for purposes of the Act in respect of companyonuts and companyra.
By a Notification dated June 27, 1949 the then Government of Madras, in exercise of the power companyferred on it by section 2 1 a , declared companyonuts and companyra to be companymercial crops.
It was a law in force immediately before the companystitution of the State of Andhra Pradesh and governed the territories number forming part of that State.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. All these four appeals by special leave raise a companymon question regarding interpretation of section 11 1 of the Madras Commercial Crops Market Act, XX of 1933 and Rule 28 of the Rules made thereunder and therefore can be disposed of by a companymon judgment.
The Act was originally enacted by the Madras Legislature.
