- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31559 WP No. 1882 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 1882 OF 2020 (APMC) BETWEEN: *FLIPKART INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 3RD FLOOR, BUILDING ALYSSA EMBASSY TECH VILLAGE DEVARABEESANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 103 REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR.SHABEER MOHAMEDAPPA …PETITIONER [BY SRI AVINASH BALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI NIKHILESH RAO M, ADVOCATE (PH)] AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT 2ND FLOOR GATE 2, M.S.BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001. 2. JOINT DIRECTOR LAW ENFORCEMENT SOUTH ZONE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING RMC YARD M.G.COMPLEX YESHWANTPUR BENGALURU-560022. 3. MARKET OFFICER OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR, LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING RMC YARD M.G.COMPLEX YESHWANTPUR, BENGALURU-560 022. *Correction carried vide Chamber Order dated 25.09.2025. Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31559 WP No. 1882 of 2020 4. THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, MARKET YARD, YASHWANTHPUR, BENGALURU - 560 022, REP BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 (PH) SRI T. SWAROOP, ADVOCATE FOR R4 (PH)] THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 8.1.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AGAINST THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE-A, QUASH THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE DTD.20.1.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AGAINST THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE-B, QUASH THE IMPUGNED MAHAZAR DTD 30.12.2019 DRAW BY R-3 ANNEXURE-CGRANT COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs: a) Quash by a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, the impugned Demand Notice dated 08.01.2020 bearing No.Kru Ma Ee:86:Jam Ni Da Va:Ka Ja Ko:19-20 issued by respondent no.2 against the petitioner (Annexure-A); b) Quash by a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, the impugned Demand Notice dated 20.01.2020 bearing No.Kru Ma Ee:86:Jam Ni Da Va:Ka Ja Ko:19-20 issued by respondent no.2 against the petitioner (Annexure-B); - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31559 WP No. 1882 of 2020 c) Quash by a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, the impugned Manazar dated 30.12.2019 drawn by respondent no.3 (Annexure-C) and etc. 2. Sri Avinash Balakrishna, learned counsel appearing for Sri Nikhilesh Rao M., advocate for petitioner submitted that petitioner is a multinational company having trade licence. It was submitted that petitioner is engaged in business of wholesale cash and carry trading of tangible and intangible goods and products including agricultural produces. It was submitted, petitioner never purchased goods directly from producers, agriculturists or farmers only from traders. 3. It was submitted on 30.12.2019, respondent no.3 conducted inspection of petitioner's premises at Sy.nos.3/1 and 4/2 of Kadipalya village, Dasanpura Hobli, Nelamangala, Bengaluru and drew mahazar stating that petitioner had illegally stocked notified agricultural products worth Rs.2,41,59,132/-. Based on same, impugned demand notices were issued to petitioner stating that said products attracted market fee and penalty under Section 70 of Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966. It was submitted that since petitioner had purchased - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31559 WP No. 1882 of 2020 goods from traders, goods would have suffered market fee levy. It was submitted products once suffered market fee cannot be levied with market fee again. It was also submitted mahazar included non-notified products. On said grounds sought for quashing of Annexures - A and B. 4. Sri Jayalingayya Mudenoormath, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents no.1 to 3 and Sri T. Swaroop, learned counsel for respondent no.4 opposed writ petition. It was submitted by learned counsel for respondent no.4 that writ petition was seeking quashing of mere demand notices without even filing reply to same. It was submitted, in case petitioner submitted reply by appending relevant records to indicate or establish that goods noted in mahazar at Annexure-C had suffered market fee levy in Karnataka, respondents would consider same and exempt/exclude said goods from demand and pass appropriate orders. It was further stated that, at time of consideration, respondents would also examine and exclude non-notified products from scope of demand. 5. Heard, learned counsel for parties and perused writ petition record. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31559 WP No. 1882 of 2020 6. From above, it is seen that petitioner herein is impugning demand notices issued by respondent no.4 calling upon petitioner to show cause against levy of market fee and penalty on goods in possession of petitioner at its premises bearing Sy.nos.3/1 and 4/2 of Kadipalya village, Dasanpura Hobli, Nelamangala, Bengaluru. While petitioner contends that demand not only includes non-notified products, but also goods which had already suffered market fee levy. Respondents submits that, in case appropriate reply is submitted, respondents would consider same and pass appropriate orders. 7. In view of above, instead of retaining writ petition, it would be appropriate to permit petitioner to submit reply to demand notices at Annexures-A and B with respondent no.4 within a period of four weeks from today along with supporting records to substantiate petitioner’s contentions. 8. On submission of reply, respondents to consider same and pass appropriate orders thereon within four weeks considering contentions and material made available by petitioner on merits, after affording opportunity to petitioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31559 WP No. 1882 of 2020 9. It is seen that in pursuance of an interim order passed by this Court on 27.01.2020, petitioner had deposited 50% of demand amount before this Court. Petitioner is directed to withdraw same and re-deposit it with respondent no.3 subject to outcome of determination as per above direction. Registry is directed to refund amount in deposit to petitioner forthwith. It is clarified that, in case petitioner succeeds in determination, respondent no.3 shall refund appropriate amount to petitioner without interest if refund is made within four weeks from date of determination. With above observations/directions, writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28