Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (0.26 seconds)
Cantt Board, Ajmer vs Income Tax Officer (Tds), Ajmer, Ajmer on 18 September, 2017 cites

Secunderabad Hyderabad Hotel Owners ... vs Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, ... on 20 January, 1999

v. Sree Murugan Financing Corpn. [(1992) 3 SCC 488], Secy. to Govt. of Madras v. P.R. Sriramulu [(1996) 1 SCC 345], Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P. [(1997) 2 SCC 715], Research Foundation for Science, Technology & Ecology v. Ministry of Agriculture [(1999) 1 SCC 655] and Secunderabad Hyderabad Hotel Owners' Assn. v. Hyderabad Municipal Corpn. [(1999) 2 SCC 274] it was held that the traditional concept of quid pro quo in a fee has undergone considerable transformation. So far as the regulatory fee is concerned, the service to be rendered is not a condition precedent and the same does not lose the character of a fee provided the fee so charged is not excessive. It was not necessary that service to be rendered by the collecting authority should be confined to the contributories alone. The levy does not cease to be a fee merely because there is an element of compulsion or coerciveness present in it, nor is it a postulate of a fee that it must have a direct relation to the actual service rendered by the authority to each individual who obtains the benefit of the service. Quid pro quo in the strict sense was not always a sine qua non for a fee. All that is necessary is that there should be a reasonable relationship between the levy of fee and the services rendered. It was observed that it was not necessary to establish that those who pay the fee must receive direct or special benefit or advantage of the services rendered for which the fee was being paid. It was held that if one who is liable to pay, receives general benefit from the authority levying the fee, the element of service required for collecting the fee is satisfied." (Emphasis supplied)
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 109 - S V Manohar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next