By S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors · Published 2 April 2026 · Informational content, not legal advice
About this article: A general explainer prepared by S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors on a recurring type of dispute. It does not report a specific judgment or order, names no parties and gives no case citation, so it should not be cited as authority. Law and practice change; please verify against the current statute and primary sources before relying on it.
State Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) laws allow a market committee to levy a market fee on the sale and purchase of notified agricultural produce. Whether a trader who buys directly from a farmer at the farm gate, outside the notified market yard, owes that fee is a recurring dispute, and the answer depends on the wording of the particular state Act and its amendments.
The common argument for traders is that the charging provision is tied to transactions within the notified market area, so a purchase concluded outside it does not attract the fee merely because the trader holds a licence or the produce is later brought into the market area. Market committees often contend that the fee follows the licensed trader or the movement of the produce. Courts read the charging section of the relevant state Act closely, and recent reforms in several states have also changed the position for private markets and direct purchase.
Even where a farm-gate purchase is outside the fee, a committee can examine whether a transaction was genuinely concluded outside the market area or was merely structured to look that way.