JUDGMENT The appellant has called in question the order dated 1-4-2004 in W.P. No. 257 of 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. 2. The appellant is a dealer in raw cashew nuts and pepper and its place of business is in the notified market area of Puttur in Dakshina Kannada District. During the year 1992-93, the appellant purchased raw cashew nuts and pepper from the farn1ers and paid market fee of Rs. 1,37,430.50 to the respondent-the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Puttur. Thereafter, the appellant sold the raw cashew nuts and pepper in the same year and in the same market area The respondent-Market Committee, vide their letter dated 20-11-1993 levied a market fee of Rs. 1,41,054.10 on the second sale transaction made by the appellant. The appellant, being aggrieved by the order dated 20-11-1993 levying market fee, approached this Court in WP. No. 43778 of 1993 on the ground that it is not liable to pay market fee on the second sales effected since it has already paid market fee at the time it made purchases. In the said writ petition, this Court granted an interim order of stay subject to the appellant depositing a sum of Rs. 1,41,054.10 paise. Accordingly, on 24-1-1994, the appellant deposited the said amount. A Full Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition filed by the appellant and held that the Market Committee is not justified in levying and collecting market fee under Section 65(2) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 ('the Act' for short), even though the market fee was collected by the Market Committee on the first transaction. On the question of refund of market fee deposited by the appellant and others, the Full Court directed as under: "We, therefore, direct that the petitioner may prove his claim before the Secretary of Market Committee that he has not passed on the burden of market fee to its buyers by producing the relevant material. If such a claim is made within one month from the date of judgment copy is made ready, the Secretary, Market Committee shall thereupon decide whether the claim is correct and if it is correct, the amount shall be refunded within one month thereafter, with interest at 12% PA from the date of collection". 3. If such a claim is made within one month from the date of judgment copy is made ready, the Secretary, Market Committee shall thereupon decide whether the claim is correct and if it is correct, the amount shall be refunded within one month thereafter, with interest at 12% PA from the date of collection". 3. After disposal of W.P. No. 43778 of 1993, the appellant approached the respondent-Market Committee for refund of a sum of Rs. 1,41,054.10 deposited by it during the pendency of writ proceedings as per its representation dated 5-2-2001. The respondent-Market Committee, by endorsement dated 27-3-2001, rejected the claim for refund by the appellant on the ground that the appellant has passed on the burden of market fee on its buyers and as per the provisions of the Act, the appellant is not entitled for refund. The appellant being aggrieved by the endorsement dated 27-3-2001, Annexure-C to the writ petition, filed W.P. No. 257 of 2002 on the file of this Court. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 1-4-2004 rejected the writ petition on the ground that the appellant is not entitled to recoupment of market fee under Section 65 of the Act. Hence, this writ appeal. 4. Sri Satenahalli, learned Counsel for the appellant contends, that there is no prohibition under the Act for recoupment of market fee paid by the appellant on the first transaction. He contends, that in view of the law declared by a Full Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 43778 of 1993, the respondent-Market Committee is entitled to levy and collect market fee under Section 65(2) of the Act on the first transaction and it is not entitled to levy and collect market fee on the subsequent transactions. He submits, that the appellant has paid the market fee of Rs. 1,37,430.50 on the first purchase transaction and therefore deposit of Rs. 1,41,05410 made by the appellant on the second sale transaction is liable to be refunded to the appellant. He contends, that in the sale bills of second sale transaction though the appellant has mentioned the sale Price plus the market fee the same is the sale consideration He contends, that the appellant is entitled to recoup the market fee paid by it from its buyers on the second sale transaction. He contends, that in the sale bills of second sale transaction though the appellant has mentioned the sale Price plus the market fee the same is the sale consideration He contends, that the appellant is entitled to recoup the market fee paid by it from its buyers on the second sale transaction. Reliance is placed on the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Mafarlal Industries Limited v Union of India and Others. 5. Sri B.G. Sridharan, learned Counsel for the respondent-Market Committee contends, that under the Act, the appellant is not entitled fur recoupment of the market fee paid on the first purchase transaction. It is the obligation of the appellant to pay the market tee on the first purchase transaction. He contends, that admittedly the appellant has recouped the market tee in the second sale transaction and therefore it is liable to pay the market fee collected on the second sale transaction to the respondent-Market Committee. He justifies the impugned endorsement dated 27-3-2001 refusing to refund the market fee to the appellant He contends, that a Full Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 43778 of 1993 directed to refund the market tee to the appellant if the appellant has not passed on the burden of market fee to its buyers. But, admittedly in the instant case the appellant has passed on the burden of market fee to its buyers and therefore the appellant is not entitled for refund of the market fee. He justifies the order of the learned Single Judge. 6. Heard arguments on both the sides and perused the entire writ papers. 7. At this stage it is necessary to notice the provisions of Section 65(2-A) of the Act and the same reads as under: "65. He justifies the order of the learned Single Judge. 6. Heard arguments on both the sides and perused the entire writ papers. 7. At this stage it is necessary to notice the provisions of Section 65(2-A) of the Act and the same reads as under: "65. (2-A) The market fee payable under this section shall be realised as follows, namely._ (i) if the produce is sold through a commission agent, the commission agent shall realise the market fee from the purchaser and shall be liable to pay the same to the committee; (ia) if the Produce is sold by an importer to the purchaser, the importer shall realise the market fee from the purchaser and shall be liable to pay the same to the Committee; (ii) if the produce is Purchased directly by a trader from a producer, the trader shall be liable to pay the market fee to the Committee; (iii) if the produce is purchased by a trader from another trader, the trader selling the produce shall realise it from the purchaser and shall be liable to pay the market fee to the committee; and (iv) in any other case of sale of such produce, the purchaser shall be liable to pay the market fee to the committee". 8. A reading of Section 65(2-A) of the Act makes it clear, that there is no scope for recoupment of market fee paid by a trader or a purchaser. At every stage a liability is fixed on the trader or purchaser on the first sale transaction to pay the market fee to the Market Committee. In the instant case, the appellant specifically contends before the authorities under the Act, that it is entitled to recoup the market fee paid to the Market Committee on the second sale transaction. Even before the learned Single Judge the appellant contended, that it has collected Rs. 1,41,054.10 from the purchasers by way of recoupment of market fee. Even in the bills that are produced by the appellant before the authorities under the Act. in one column it is mentioned, the sale price of the produce and in another column, the quantum of recoupment of market fee. Therefore, what is collected by the appellant in the second sale transaction made by it is the market fee by way of recoupment. in one column it is mentioned, the sale price of the produce and in another column, the quantum of recoupment of market fee. Therefore, what is collected by the appellant in the second sale transaction made by it is the market fee by way of recoupment. As per the provisions of the Act, the appellant is not entitled to recoupment of market fee on the second sale transaction. Consequently, the appellant is not entitled to retain with it the market fee collected on second sale transaction and if it is paid to the Market Committee, the appellant is not entitled for refund of the market fee. 9. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that though in the sale bills it is mentioned as sale price plus the recoupment of market fee, the same is to be considered as sale consideration is not acceptable to us. Neither before the authorities under the Act nor before the learned Single Judge the appellant has taken the plea that the market fee collected under the second sale transaction is a part of sale price. Therefore, at this stage, the appellant is not entitled to contend, that what is collected under the sale bills in the second sale transaction is the sale price and not the market fee. It is not the case of the appellant that the amount recovered by it by way of recoupment of market fee is really a part of the entire consideration paid by the buyer. On the basis of the material on record and the stand taken by the appellant that as a matter of right it is entitled for recoupment of market fee, the learned Single Judge is right in holding that the appellant is not entitled for recoupment of market fee under the provisions of Section 65 of the Act. 10. The decision relied on by the appellant in Mafatlal industries Limited's case will not come its aid. In Maratlal industries Limited's case, the Supreme Court held, that when seller passes on his tax liability to the buyer the amount recovered by the dealer is really a part of the entire consideration paid by the buyer and the distinction between the two amounts - tax and price - looses all significance. In Maratlal industries Limited's case, the Supreme Court held, that when seller passes on his tax liability to the buyer the amount recovered by the dealer is really a part of the entire consideration paid by the buyer and the distinction between the two amounts - tax and price - looses all significance. But, in the instant case, for the first time before us the learned Counsel for the appellant contends, that what is recovered by way of recoupment of market fee is a part of sale consideration paid by the buyer. The appellant has not taken this plea either before the authorities under the Act or before the learned Single Judge and no material is placed in support of this contention. On the other hand it is the contention of appellant that as a matter of right it is entitled to recoup the market fee. Therefore, the market fee collected by the appellant on the second sale transaction and deposited with the respondent-Market Committee is not liable to be refunded to the appellant. 11. On an earlier occasion, a Full Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 43778 of 1993 held, that the respondent-Market Committee is not entitled to levy multi-point market fee under Section 65 of the Act. The Full Bench further observed, that the appellant may prove his claim before the Secretary of the Market Committee that it has not passed on the burden of market fee to its buyers by producing the relevant material. But, admittedly the appellant has passed on the liability of market fee to its buyers on the second sale transaction. Even the cash bills produced by the appellant before the authorities under the Act establishes the fact that the appellant has passed on the burden of market fee to its buyers on the second sale transaction. Therefore, in terms of the Full Bench decision of this Court, the appellant is not entitled for refund of the market fee paid to the respondent-Market Committee. 12. As per the law declared by a Full Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 43778 of 1993, the respondent-Market Committee is not entitled to levy and collect market fee under Section 65(2) of the Act even though the market fee was collected by the Market Committee on the first transaction. 12. As per the law declared by a Full Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 43778 of 1993, the respondent-Market Committee is not entitled to levy and collect market fee under Section 65(2) of the Act even though the market fee was collected by the Market Committee on the first transaction. In the instant case, the appellant made purchases of raw cashew nut and pepper directly from agriculturists during the year 1992-93 and paid the market fee Rs. 1,37,430.50 to the respondent-Market Committee on the first transaction. Subsequently, during the pendency of the proceedings in W.P. No. 43778 of 1993 the appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 1,41,054.10 with the respondent-Market Committee by way of market fee on the second sale transaction of the same product in the same market yard. Therefore, the respondent-Market Committee collected the market fee from the appellant on two occasions in respect of the same commodity by way of levying multi-point market fee. The respondent-Market Committee is not entitled to retain the amount of Rs. 1,41,054.10 collected from the appellant on the second sale transaction as market fee. The respondent-Market Committee is liable to refund this amount to the buyers of appellant from whom the market fee is collected. During the pendency of this appeal proceedings the respondent-Market Committee filed a memo on 29-11-2005 and the same reads as under: "That the respondent-Market Committee respectfully submits that the appellant had transacted the business of selling the notified agricultural produce within the market area in favour of six traders during the marketing year from 1-4-1992 to 31-3-1993. Out of 6 traders, according to the sale bills produced before the Market Committee, he had collected the market fee from the following 4 traders and the market fee collected from them is also indicated: 1. Malayalam Export Enterprises Rs. 88,350.44 2. Century Cashew Products Rs.51,184.48 3. Kumbla Krishna Ananth Prabhu Bandar, Mangalore Rs. 150.80 4. Chonnad Brothers, Belgaum Rs. 75975 If the Hon'ble Court so directs, the Market Committee will issue notice to each one of them to attend the office of the Market Committee and receive the amount of market fee from the Market Committee which was collected from them as second purchasers. They are also required to submit necessary documents and also prove their identity. 75975 If the Hon'ble Court so directs, the Market Committee will issue notice to each one of them to attend the office of the Market Committee and receive the amount of market fee from the Market Committee which was collected from them as second purchasers. They are also required to submit necessary documents and also prove their identity. If the above traders approach the Market Committee and prove their identity, the Market Committee will refund the amount as stated above. In case any or all the above traders do not respond and come and receive the refund, the Market Committee may be permitted to invest the said amount in the Revolving Fund, in the interest of justice". 13. For the reasons stated above, the following.- ORDER L Writ appeal is rejected; II. The respondent Market Committee is directed to issue notice to each one of the four buyers from whom the market fee is collected as shown in the memo dated 29-11-2005; III The buyers, on proof of their identity and by producing necessary documents are entitled for refund of the market fee paid by them in the second sale transaction; IV. In the event of the failure of buyers responding to the notice of the Market Committee and establishing their identity and proof, the Market Committee is directed to deposit the market fee collected on the second sale transaction to the Revolving Fund constituted under the Floor Price Scheme. Ordered accordingly.