License To Cheat: APMC Act robs markets of crores of rupees
19 Jul 2008 10:04 am
Mumbai - The Model APMC Act for the markets in Maharashtra is proving to be a bane as the direct trading licenses, formulated through an amendment to the APMC Act in 2005, are causing losses of crores of rupees to the markets.
Acting on the directives from the Central government, the State had amended the APMC Act in 2005 on the basis of the Model APMC Act and made provisions for establishment of private markets, direct procurement from farmers and contract farming. The intention was to make the markets more open and transparent for farmers and traders.
However, the 45 direct trading licenses, which were issued by the Maharashtra State Agriculture Marketing Board (MSAMB) as per the provision in the amended Act, have added to the woes of the markets. Though the license-holders are buying directly from farmers, they are not paying the market and supervision tax to the respective APMC (Agriculture Produce and Marketing Committee). Thus the APMC is losing a revenue of crores of rupees. Interestingly, all such cases are pertaining to cotton procurement.
In Parbhani district, two license-holders owe market and supervision tax of around Rs 70 lakh to the Shelu APMC. The amount is more than half of the total revenue of that market. Officials from the Shelu APMC said, if they don't receive the pending tax amount soon, they would not be able to pay salaries of their employees after three-four months. Shelu APMC is now planning to sue the two license-holders.
The APMC at Majalgaon and Kaij in Beed district have already approached the MSAMB for recovery of the pending tax amount. Majalgaon APMC is due to collect around Rs 70 lakh to Rs 75 lakh from license-holders.
A number of APMCs in Marathwada region, including Ghevrai, Dharur, Beed, Pardi, Gangkhed, Ambaad and Sillodh, are having market and supervision tax ranging from Rs five lakh to Rs one crore pending with the direct license-holders.
After receiving complaints from different markets, the MSAMB has directed the direct license-holders to make payment of the pending amount. Managing Director of MSAMB S P Sangle told commoditiescontrol.com that the board has already ordered to all the defaulters to pay the pending tax amount soon, otherwise their bank guarantee will be seized and their licenses will not be renewed.
Sangle said that the Act has a provision of market and supervision tax relaxation for processors and exporters. Therefore, most of the direct license holders pretend to be cotton ginners and exporters to take benefit of this provision.
When contacted, V S Rajpal, the proprietor of prominent direct license-holder Manjeet Cotton, claimed that his firm is not liable to pay the market and supervision tax as they are in the business of ginning and exporting of cotton.
Meanwhile, Kaij APMC in Beed district, in its appeal in the court, has in fact challenged the MSAMB's definition of processing and exports. The APMC has claimed that ginning, in which cotton lint is separated from the seed, can't be termed as processing. Similarly, it has also sought to discuss the definition of exports.
It may be mentioned here that government agencies like the Cotton Corporation of India (CCI) and Maharashtra Cotton Federation (MahaFed) also purchase cotton from farmers and then sell it after getting its ginning done on contract basis. But, contrary to the direct license-holders, the CCI and MahaFed promptly pay the market and supervision tax.
19 Jul 2008 10:04 am
Mumbai - The Model APMC Act for the markets in Maharashtra is proving to be a bane as the direct trading licenses, formulated through an amendment to the APMC Act in 2005, are causing losses of crores of rupees to the markets.
Acting on the directives from the Central government, the State had amended the APMC Act in 2005 on the basis of the Model APMC Act and made provisions for establishment of private markets, direct procurement from farmers and contract farming. The intention was to make the markets more open and transparent for farmers and traders.
However, the 45 direct trading licenses, which were issued by the Maharashtra State Agriculture Marketing Board (MSAMB) as per the provision in the amended Act, have added to the woes of the markets. Though the license-holders are buying directly from farmers, they are not paying the market and supervision tax to the respective APMC (Agriculture Produce and Marketing Committee). Thus the APMC is losing a revenue of crores of rupees. Interestingly, all such cases are pertaining to cotton procurement.
In Parbhani district, two license-holders owe market and supervision tax of around Rs 70 lakh to the Shelu APMC. The amount is more than half of the total revenue of that market. Officials from the Shelu APMC said, if they don't receive the pending tax amount soon, they would not be able to pay salaries of their employees after three-four months. Shelu APMC is now planning to sue the two license-holders.
The APMC at Majalgaon and Kaij in Beed district have already approached the MSAMB for recovery of the pending tax amount. Majalgaon APMC is due to collect around Rs 70 lakh to Rs 75 lakh from license-holders.
A number of APMCs in Marathwada region, including Ghevrai, Dharur, Beed, Pardi, Gangkhed, Ambaad and Sillodh, are having market and supervision tax ranging from Rs five lakh to Rs one crore pending with the direct license-holders.
After receiving complaints from different markets, the MSAMB has directed the direct license-holders to make payment of the pending amount. Managing Director of MSAMB S P Sangle told commoditiescontrol.com that the board has already ordered to all the defaulters to pay the pending tax amount soon, otherwise their bank guarantee will be seized and their licenses will not be renewed.
Sangle said that the Act has a provision of market and supervision tax relaxation for processors and exporters. Therefore, most of the direct license holders pretend to be cotton ginners and exporters to take benefit of this provision.
When contacted, V S Rajpal, the proprietor of prominent direct license-holder Manjeet Cotton, claimed that his firm is not liable to pay the market and supervision tax as they are in the business of ginning and exporting of cotton.
Meanwhile, Kaij APMC in Beed district, in its appeal in the court, has in fact challenged the MSAMB's definition of processing and exports. The APMC has claimed that ginning, in which cotton lint is separated from the seed, can't be termed as processing. Similarly, it has also sought to discuss the definition of exports.
It may be mentioned here that government agencies like the Cotton Corporation of India (CCI) and Maharashtra Cotton Federation (MahaFed) also purchase cotton from farmers and then sell it after getting its ginning done on contract basis. But, contrary to the direct license-holders, the CCI and MahaFed promptly pay the market and supervision tax.