citedby: 1231443

M/S.Cochin Refineries Ltd vs Vadavukode Puthencruiz Grama on 18 August, 2007

"The distinction between compensatory fee and regulatory fee is well established by several decisions of this Court. Reference may be made to the decision of the Constitution Bench in Corpn. of Calcutta v. Liberty Cinema. It has been held in the said decision that the expression 'licence fee' does not necessarily mean a fee in lieu of services and that in the case of regulatory fees, no quid pro quo need be established. The following observations may usefully be quoted:

Kerala High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - H L Dattu - Full Document

M/S.Cochin Refineries Ltd vs Vadavukode Puthencruiz Grama on 18 August, 2007

"The distinction between compensatory fee and regulatory fee is well established by several decisions of this Court. Reference may be made to the decision of the Constitution Bench in Corpn. of Calcutta v. Liberty Cinema. It has been held in the said decision that the expression 'licence fee' does not necessarily mean a fee in lieu of services and that in the case of regulatory fees, no quid pro quo need be established. The following observations may usefully be quoted:

Kerala High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 1 - H L Dattu - Full Document

Lady Tanumati Girijaprasad Chinubhai ... vs Spl. Land Acq. Officer on 22 December, 1972

Ltd., was delivered, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court did not have the benefit of the observations of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Corporation v. Liberty Cinema (supra) and particularly of the analysis made by Ayyangar J. of the items in 3 Legislative Lists in Schedule 7. We have already referred to this analysis of the scheme of the items in the 3 legislative lists and in view of that analysis it is clear that any imposition which is not covered by the taxation powers of Parliament or the State Legislature must be justified by the power to levy a fee under one or the other of the items in the Legislative lists and even court fees covered by item 3 in the State List in the 7th Schedule of the Constitution must be considered as a fee meaning thereby a payment for services rendered by the State. Under these circumstances we are unable to agree with this decision of the Bombay High Court.

Gujarat High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 1 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Ntpc Limited & Another vs State Of U.P. & Others on 11 November, 2011

The Supreme Court relied upon judgments in Corporation of Calcutta vs. Liberty Cinema (supra); Secunderabad Hyderabad Hotel Onwers' Association vs. Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (supra) and P. Kannadasan vs. State of T.N. (supra). In paragraph-10 of the judgment following the aforesaid cases the Supreme Court held that the transit fee under Rule 5 is clearly regulatory and thus it was not necessary for the State to establish quid pro quo. In the year 2004 by notification dated 14.6.2004 the transit fee was increased from Rs. 5/- per tonne to Rs. 38/- per tonne.

Allahabad High Court Cites 171 - Cited by 23 - S Ambwani - Full Document

M/S Dandamudi Hospitality Private ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 26 June, 2025

We cannot accept this argument for three reasons, namely, (1) the decision of this Court in Calcutta Corporation v. Liberty Cinema(1) should be confined only to the provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Act wherein this Court found a guidance; (2) the provisions of the Sales Tax Act, including the preamble, do not disclose any policy or guidance to the State for fixing the rates; and (3) the general constitutional power to impose taxes has no relevance for discovering a statutory policy under a particular Act.