ORDER : T. Madhavi Devi, J. In these Writ Petitions, the petitioners are challenging the assessment of the market fees payable by the petitioners on purchase of rice/paddy from outside the State for the assessment years 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, without power, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Telangana (Agricultural Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966 and the Rules made thereunder and also challenging the order dt.28.06.2024 rejecting the renewal of trade licences of the petitioners as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to renew the trade licences of the petitioners for a further period of three years from 2024 to 2027 and to pass such other order or orders. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petitions are that the petitioners are licence holders who are dealing with agricultural produce and claim to be paying necessary market fees by producing relevant records. It is submitted that the petitioners have been purchasing rice from outside the State of Telangana, i.e., Bihar and Uttar Pradesh and the 3 rd respondent in W.P.Nos.13907, 13909, 13914, 13915, 13946 and 13968 of 2024 has been exempting the petitioners from payment of market fees on purchase of rice/paddy from outside the State and export to other countries in terms of G.O.Ms.No.96, Agriculture and Cooperation (AM-IV) Department, dt.19.10.2013 and also in terms of the Circular No. Projects/38/2005 dt.28.11.2013 of the 2 nd respondent. 3. It is submitted that, for the first time, the 3 rd respondent in W.P.Nos.13907, 13909, 13914, 13915, 13946 and 13968 of 2024 has assessed the market fees on the rice purchased from other States for the assessment years 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 contrary to the instructions of the 1 st and 2 nd respondents. It is submitted that Sections 12(1) and 12(B) of the Telangana (Agricultural Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966 (for short, “the Act”) provide for charging and levying of market fee on the notified agricultural produce and that the 3 rd respondent in W.P.Nos.13907, 13909, 13914, 13915, 13946 and 13968 of 2024 shall assess the market fee only on purchase or sale of the agricultural produce in the notified market area. It is submitted that under Section 12-B of the Act, only if the return submitted by the assessee is incorrect or incomplete, the assessing authority shall, after giving the trader an opportunity of providing the correctness and completeness of the return submitted by him and after making such enquiry as it considers necessary, assess to the best of its judgment, the amount of market fee, due from the trader. It is submitted that the assessment under this Section shall, however, be made only within a period of three (3) years from the expiry of the years to which the assessment relates. It is submitted that in this case, the assessments are made for the year 2020-2021 in the year 2024 i.e., after expiry of three (3) years to which the assessments relate and further that no documents were called for from the petitioners before making the assessment. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the assessment is not only without jurisdiction but also is in violation of the principles of natural justice and the guidelines issued therefor. 4. At the time of admission of the Writ Petitions, this Court had directed the respondents not to take any coercive steps for implementation of the impugned assessment orders. 5. The 3 rd respondent in W.P.Nos.13907, 13909, 13914, 13915, 13946 and 13968 of 2024 and the 4 th respondent in W.P.No.17444 of 2024 have filed counter affidavits along with vacate petitions in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in W.P.No.13907 of 2024, I.A.No.2 of 2024 in W.P.No.13909 of 2024, I.A.No.2 of 2024 in W.P.No.13914 of 2024, I.A.No.2 of 2024 in W.P.No.13915, I.A.No.2 of 2024 in W.P.No.13946 of 2024, I.A.No.2 of 2024 in W.P.No.13968 of 2024 and I.A.No.4 of 2024 in W.P.No.17444 of 2024 submitting that the exemption of market fee on rice is only when market fee is paid on the paddy and paddy is brought from other States for processing, packing and storage and unless and until they are sold again within the State, subject to production of certain documents and after making due enquiries and thorough verification of the documents produced with regard to the destiny of the commodity in question by the assessing authority, the market fee is exempted. It is submitted that the returns filed by the petitioners never dealt with the destiny of the purchased rice nor did the petitioners pay the market fee as mandated and therefore, the levy of market fee by the assessing authority is correct. It is submitted that G.O.Ms.No.96 dt.19.10.2013 clearly states that exemption was given from payment of market fee of 1% rice being sold outside the State to other States within India as well as being exported to other countries for the entire life time and in para 6 thereof, it is clearly mentioned that exemption is given for entire life time as the rice is a processed commodity and cess is already collected on paddy. It is submitted that the petitioners have not produced any evidence in the form of any documents to show that the market fee has been paid on such paddy and therefore the rice is not exempted from payment of market fee. As regards the jurisdiction of the assessing authority in making assessment after the lapse of three years from the end of the relevant year, the respondents have relied upon the powers vested with the assessing authority under Section 12-B of the Act and further submitted that an appeal would lie against such assessment under Section 12-E of the Act and thereafter a revision under Section 12-F of the Act and the petitioners have approached this Court without exhausting the alternative remedy. It was therefore prayed that the Writ Petitions be dismissed. 6. Further, as regards the contentions of the petitioners that they have applied for renewal of licence but the respondents have not renewed the licence, it is submitted that the said contentions are incorrect and that the petitioners have not made any such applications for renewal of licence except for making a prayer in these Writ Petitions. 7. In support of the contention of the respondents that when an alternative remedy is available, the petitioners can only avail such alternative remedy, the learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent in W.P.Nos.13907, 13909, 13914, 13915, 13946 and 13968 of 2024 and 4 th respondent in W.P.Nos.17444 and 17954 of 2024 has placed reliance upon a decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gayatri Bio Organics Limited Vs. The State of Telangana rep. by the Principal Secretary, Agricultural Marketing Department and others , [W.P.No.16537 of 2024 dt.28.06.2024] . The State of Telangana rep. by the Principal Secretary, Agricultural Marketing Department and others , [W.P.No.16537 of 2024 dt.28.06.2024] . He submitted that in spite of knowing the above legal position, the petitioners have approached this Court by these Writ Petitions to avoid payment of admitted market fee to entertain the appeal. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, placed reliance upon the following decisions to submit that the Writ Petition is maintainable where the assessing authority has no jurisdiction to pass such orders or has not followed principles of natural justice or provisions of law. (1) PHR Invent Educational Society Vs. Uco Bank and others, Civil Appeal No.___of 2024 arising out of SLP(C) No.8867 of 2022 dt.10.04.2024 : 2024 INSC 297 (2) Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, (2021) 6 SCC 771 (3) Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. The Excise and Taxation Officer- cum-Assessing Authority and others, MANU/SC/0086/2023 (4) Kranti Associates Private Limited and another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others, (2010) 9 SCC 496 9. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the petitioners have filed their returns and have produced the records, books of accounts, statements and other relevant records in support of their returns. The assessing authority itself has recorded that in respect of the market fee on paddy, the petitioners have submitted cash receipts, export permits and letters of payment to claim market fee exemptions and they were found to be valid and the same were considered for exemption, but has observed that while submitting monthly purchase returns, it was found that the sum of Rs.88,672/- is due from the petitioner in W.P.No.13907 of 2024. It was also observed that the petitioner has imported 94791.08 quintals of paddy from other States for processing and that the petitioner has not produced evidence or proof for 4495 quintals of paddy in support of the claim of exemption for market fee. It was further observed that the petitioner is not entitled for any market fee exemptions as per the market rules in vogue and the petitioner in W.P.No.13907 of 2024 was directed to pay a sum of Rs.88,672/- towards market fee for 4495 quintals of paddy for the assessment year 2021-2022. 10. It was further observed that the petitioner is not entitled for any market fee exemptions as per the market rules in vogue and the petitioner in W.P.No.13907 of 2024 was directed to pay a sum of Rs.88,672/- towards market fee for 4495 quintals of paddy for the assessment year 2021-2022. 10. As regards market fee on rice, the assessing authority observed that the petitioner in W.P.No.13907 of 2024 did not produce any cash receipts, export permits and letters of payment towards payment of market fee and that the petitioner has made certain purchases of rice within the State and hence is liable to pay market fee of Rs.2,33,502/- on the rice purchased within the State and further a sum of Rs.18,621/- on the rice purchases made from out of the State. Thereafter, subject to the outcome of W.P.No.31801 of 2022, a demand for Rs.18,621/- was made. 11. As regards rice converted/processed from paddy within the State, it was allowed and in respect of the rice converted/processed from paddy out of the State, a demand of Rs.18,78,572/- was made. 12. In respect of the petitioners in other Writ Petitions, i.e., W.P.Nos.13909, 13914, 13915, 13946 and 13968 of 2024, similar observations were made by the assessing authority in the respective impugned orders on the four categories of commodities with varied market fee demands vis-a-vis quintals of commodities. 13. Thus, it can be seen that the petitioners have produced the relevant documents and if the assessing authority was of the opinion that the said returns are incomplete or incorrect, then in accordance with Section 12-B of the Act, he ought to have called for the petitioners’ explanations, if any. From the impugned orders, it is clear that no such notices were given to the petitioners and no explanations were called for from the petitioners and no show-cause notices were issued as to why the demand should not be raised against the petitioners. Therefore, it is in clear violation of the provisions of the Telangana (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 and also in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, it is in clear violation of the provisions of the Telangana (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 and also in violation of the principles of natural justice. The said provision is very clear that if the returns submitted by the trader were to be accepted as they are, no notice need be given, but if the assessing authority is of the opinion that the return is incomplete or incorrect, the trader ought to be put on notice before making any assessment. 14. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent in W.P.Nos.13907, 13909, 13914, 13915, 13946 and 13968 of 2024 is that when there is an efficacious alternative remedy available, Writ Petition is not maintainable. This Court finds that the same would be applicable if the assessment was made in accordance with the Act and the rules made thereunder, but not where the assessing authority did not follow the rules before finalising the assessment. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (supra) at para 27.4, has observed that an alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law. Further, in para 27.3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “ 27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where: (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged.” 16. Thus, in this case, when the assessing authority has not followed the provisions of the Telangana (Agricultural Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966 and has not followed the principles of natural justice, the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable. This principle has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various other judgments which are relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 17. This principle has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various other judgments which are relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 17. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned assessment orders in W.P.Nos.13907, 13909, 13914, 13915, 13946 and 13968 of 2024 cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside with a direction to the assessing authority of the respondent Agricultural Market Committee to issue notices to the petitioners in W.P.Nos.13907, 13909, 13914, 13915, 13946 and 13968 of 2024 along with reasons for forming an opinion that they are incorrect and incomplete details of the documents are furnished by the petitioners and after giving the petitioners an opportunity to produce them and after considering such documents, if any, the assessing authority shall re-assess the market fee payable by the said petitioners. 18. As regards the renewal of the licences of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.17444 and 17954 of 2024, due to the pendency of these Writ Petitions, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents can consider the applications of the petitioners for renewal of their licences in accordance with rules without prejudice to the assessments being made in respect of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.13907, 13909, 13914, 13915, 13946 and 13968 of 2024. 19. In the result, (i) The Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.13907, 13909, 13914, 13915, 13946 and 13968 of 2024 are allowed. (ii) The Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.17444 and 17954 of 2024 are disposed of. (iii) The vacate petitions in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in W.P.No.13907 of 2024, I.A.No.2 of 2024 in W.P.No.13909 of 2024, I.A.No.2 of 2024 in W.P.No.13914 of 2024, I.A.No.2 of 2024 in W.P.No.13915, I.A.No.2 of 2024 in W.P.No.13946 of 2024, I.A.No.2 of 2024 in W.P.No.13968 of 2024 and I.A.No.4 of 2024 in W.P.No.17444 of 2024 are dismissed. (iv) There shall be order as to costs in all these Writ Petitions. (v) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in all these Writ Petitions shall stand closed.