Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.94 seconds)
Secunderabad Hyderabad Hotel Owners ... vs Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, ... on 20 January, 1999 cites

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious ... vs Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar Of Sri ... on 16 April, 1954

In the case of The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Laxshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirpur Mutt (1954 SCR 1005) one of the earliest cases dealing with the question whether the levy is a fee or a tax, this Court held that the Constitution and in particular the legislative entries in Schedule VII of the Constitution make a clear distinction between a tax and a fee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 67 - Cited by 618 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document

Corporation Of Calcutta And Another vs Liberty Cinema on 14 December, 1964

In the case of Corporation of Calcutta and Another v. Liberty Cinema ([1965] 2 SCR 477 at page 483), this Court after referring to the constitutional provisions making a distinction between a fee and a tax, also went on to say that in our Constitution fees for licence and fees for services rendered are contemplated as different kinds of levy. The former is not intended to be a fee for services rendered. This is apparent from a consideration of Article 110(2) and Article 199(2) where both the expressions are used indicating thereby that they are not the same. In other words, a distinction was made between fees for services rendered and fees which are regulatory.
Supreme Court of India Cites 88 - Cited by 462 - A K Sarkar - Full Document

The Municipal Council, Madurai vs R. Narayanan Etc on 18 August, 1975

([1986] 1 SCR 149) and The Municipal Council, Madurai v. R. Narayanan etc. ([1976] 1 SCR 333 at pages 339 to 400) the Court had considered a fee which was charged for services rendered. In all these cases the Court observed that when a fee is charged for services rendered an element of quid pro quo is necessary and there has to be a co-relationship of a general character between the cost of rendering such service and the fee charged. A number of other decisions were also cited in this connection.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 68 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Sirsilk Ltd. And Another vs Textiles Committee & Ors on 12 September, 1988

Section 174 describes the purpose for which the municipal fund is to be applied. It is, therefore, submitted that since all the fees form a part of the common municipal fund, and this fund is to be deployed for various purposes of the municipal corporation, there is no provision by which the fee collected is used for regulatory purposes. This Court, however, in the case of Sirsilk Ltd. & Anr. v. Textiles Committee & Ors. ([1988] Supp.(2) SCR 880 at pages 910, 912) has pointed out that a separate fund is not essential in the case of regulatory fees. In the present case the Budget Estimate Rules are relied upon by the respondents in order to show that the fees are being utilised for regulatory services. The Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Budget Estimate Rules, 1968 under Rule 6 provide as follows:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 66 - A P Sen - Full Document
1