JUDGMENT : T.S. Sivagnanam, J. 1. We have heard Mr.Raghavan Ramabadran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.R.P.Prathap Singh, learned Government Advocate accepting notice for the respondents. 2. These appeals are directed against the common order dated 06.9.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.13147 and 13148 of 2013. 3. W.P.No.13147 of 2013 was filed challenging a communication issued by the fifth respondent herein dated 04.3.2013 as being violative of Article 19(1)(g) of The Constitution of India in as much as it holds that the market fee is payable in respect of purchase of any notified agricultural produce effected by the appellant from outside the notified market area. W.P.No. 13148 of 2013 was filed challenging the proceedings of the second respondent herein dated 16.4.2013 and for a consequential direction to forbear the respondents from in any manner enforcing the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987 and the Rules made thereunder or by-laws by any marketing committee in respect of purchase of any notified agricultural produce effected by the appellant from outside the notified market area. 4. The appellant's head office is stated to be situated in Coimbatore. They are engaged in the manufacture of animal feeds and other items. The issue, which was the subject matter of the said writ petitions, was in respect of procurement of certain notified agricultural produce in terms of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987 (hereinafter called the Act for brevity) from Palani, which is not a notified area under the Act. 5. The appellant's case before the learned Single Judge was that they are not liable to pay the market fee as per the provisions of the Act since they procured the agricultural product from Palani, which is not a notified marketing area. 6. The learned Single Judge, after taking note of the factual position, analysed various provisions of the Act and in particular, Section 24(1) of the Act and held that the appellant is admittedly procuring their agricultural product from Palani, that orders of procurement were placed from Udumalpet, which is a notified area, that the supply is received at Udumalpet and that therefore, the appellant is liable to pay marketing fee. 7. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that it may be true that the goods are delivered at Udumalpet, but the moot question would be as to when the purchases had been effected at Palani, which is outside the notified area, the question of levy of market fee on such purchase is not permissible and violative of the appellant's right to trade and business. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge has not given any categorical finding to the effect that the sale was concluded at Udumalpet when, admittedly, the goods were procured at Palani. 8. Section 24 of the Act deals with levy of fee by market committee. Sub-Section (1) of Section 24 of the Act empowers the market committee to levy market fee on any agricultural produce bought or sold in the notified market area at a rate not less than one rupee, but not exceeding two rupees 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. Clause (b) to Sub-Section (4) of Section 24 of the Act states that the burden of proving that any notified agricultural produce is not liable for the levy of fee or the fee payable has already been paid under this Section shall lie on the person claiming such exemption or non liability and till it is established with sufficient records to the satisfaction of the market committee that the notified agricultural produce has already suffered the liability, the fee due on such produce shall be paid. 9. Thus, in terms of Section 24(4)(b) of the Act, the burden is on the appellant to establish that the notified agricultural produce purchased by them is not liable to levy of market fee. 10. The factual position with regard to the nature of trade done by the appellant has been lucidly set out in the counter affidavit by the Superintendent of Market, Regulated Market, Coimbatore Market Committee, Udumalpet before the Writ Court. 10. The factual position with regard to the nature of trade done by the appellant has been lucidly set out in the counter affidavit by the Superintendent of Market, Regulated Market, Coimbatore Market Committee, Udumalpet before the Writ Court. For better appreciation, we wish to refer to the following averments set out in the said counter affidavit : “......As per its monthly statement, the licensee company has been paying the market fee to this market committee knowing fully well the provisions of TNAPM Act, 1987 and only for the items of purchase of notified agricultural produce, for which, this licensee is liable to pay market fee to this market committee. The licensee having paid the fee, for which, they were liable to pay statutorily, has now been stopped from April 2011 and claiming its adjustment. ......The price of the maize and other notified agricultural produce is fixed by the company. As per their letter MKT/Cess/12.12.2011 submitted by them, the price of the raw material includes market fee. The supplier supplies the material along with the credit bills. Once the material reaches the licensee premises or at its stock point, the samples are drawn from it and are assessed by its quality control lab. The material is unloaded by them only when the moisture percentage, the tolerable fungal limit and other quality parameters are upto their standards. Thereafter, the raw material is weighed and it is unloaded. If the material is good in quality, it is accepted, then the invoice is raised in favour of the supplier and payment is made through net banking. If the quality parameters are not upto their benchmark, the raw material is summarily rejected and the consignment has to be taken back by the supplier. But, under grounds mentioned in item No.“C” of the affidavit, it is stated that goods are undisputedly ascertained at Palani itself, which is not a notified market area. As per their contention, it is understood that once the goods are ascertained and procured at Palani, there is no need to test the quality parameters at the petitioner's company premises located in the notified market area i.e Udumalpet and also once the procurement is made by the petitioner company at Palani itself means nothing prevents the petitioner from raising their purchase bill and transport the raw material to their premises. But, in reality, the suppliers credit bill are accompanying the freight. But, in reality, the suppliers credit bill are accompanying the freight. If the petitioner completes his purchase proceedings at the non notified area, the petitioner need not make the conditions in his purchase order and need not reject the consignment that it purchases at the non notified area, since the risk of the seller ceases at seller's place. In this case, the petitioner has the right to reject the notified agricultural produce delivered by their suppliers. So, it is clearly evident from the above fact, the sale is effected at the notified market area i.e., at Udumalpet.” 11. The above averments set out by the Superintendent of Market, Regulated Market, Coimbatore Market Committee in the counter affidavit filed before the Writ Court have not been denied by the appellant. The modus operandi has been clearly set out in the said counter affidavit. From the above averments, it is clear that the notified produce, which is procured from Palani, is delivered in the factory gate of the appellant at Udumalpet, which admittedly falls within the notified area. The raw material is weighed and unloaded and if the material is of good quality, it is accepted and an invoice is raised in favour of the supplier and payment is made through net banking. Even as per the letter dated 12.12.2011 submitted by the appellant, the price of the raw material includes market fee. 12. That apart, it is clear that all along, the appellant has been paying market fee to the Regulated Market Committee. Further, in the counter filed before the Writ Court, it is pointed out that the appellant is supplying chicks, feed material, medicine and other material to their agent for rearing birds, that they rear the birds upto 45 days, after which, the appellant takes back the chicks for sale, that the agents are paid rearing charges after deducting chick cost, feed material cost and other expenses and that the appellant is selling some of the feed materials i.e. processed form of maize, jowar, bajra, etc., that the appellant is making profit by way of selling the chicken and that it was not correct to state that the appellant was not selling the processed maize to any other person. The above factual position will make things abundantly clear that the sale gets concluded in Udumalpet, which is within the notified area. 13. The above factual position will make things abundantly clear that the sale gets concluded in Udumalpet, which is within the notified area. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Agricultural Market Committee Vs. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. [reported in 1997 (5) SCC 516 ]. 14. On going through the said decision, we find that it supports the stand of the market committee rather the appellant. In fact, the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was a converse case where the goods were taken outside the jurisdiction of a notified area. The Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that the market fee can be levied under the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 only on the sales and purchase of notified agricultural produce within the notified area. It was further pointed out that Explanation I to Section 12 creates a legal fiction and provides that if any notified agricultural produce is taken out of a notified market area, it shall be presumed to have been purchased or sold within such area. It was also pointed out that the presumption is a rebuttable presumption and can be shown to be not correct and that the policy in enacting this provision is only to cover such transactions of sale and purchase, for which, direct evidence may not be available. 15. As pointed out by us earlier, the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was a converse case. As pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the policy in enacting this provision is only to cover such transactions of sale and purchase, for which, direct evidence may not be available. 16. In the instant case, it is the argument of Mr.Raghavan Ramabadran, learned counsel for the appellant that the matter may be remanded to the Authorities to enable the appellant to establish that sale took place outside the notified area. 17. We do not accede to such a request in the light of the factual position as set out in the counter affidavit filed in the said writ petition, which we have referred earlier, as the averments contained therein have not been denied by the appellant. Furthermore, the letter dated 12.12.2011 given by the appellant shows that the price of the raw material includes market fee. Furthermore, the letter dated 12.12.2011 given by the appellant shows that the price of the raw material includes market fee. That apart, on a correct understanding of the legal position, all along they have been paying the market fee. Thus, in our considered view, in the absence of definition of the term 'sale' under the Act, we have to necessarily apply the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. In the above factual matrix, the sale gets fructified and concluded only at Udumalpet where the invoice is raised. Therefore, the appellant is bound to pay the market fee as demanded by the Market Committee. For the above reasons, the appellant has not made out any grounds to interfere with the common order passed by the learned Single Judge. 18. In the result, the above writ appeals are dismissed. No costs.