Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.33 seconds)Section 5 in The Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 [Entire Act]
Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. ... vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 29 August, 1996
25. In the present case, petitioner have directly approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and they are legally entitled for the refund of the amount illegally realised from them without any authority of law. Similarly in case of M/s. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar and others (supra). Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph No. 9 observed as under :
Section 3 in The Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 [Entire Act]
Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs Sharad Kumar Jayantikumar Pasawalla & ... on 15 May, 1992
16. All these questions can be decided together as they relate to the power of the State to recover collection charges at the rate of 10% of the amount shown in the recovery certificate. On behalf of the petitioners, it has been submitted that there is no law under which such a demand could be made from petitioners. The respondents, on the other hand, have placed reliance on
the Government Order dated 30th August. 1974 issued under Rule 8 (c) of U. P. Revenue Recovery Rules, 1966 framed under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890. The question for determination is as to whether the Government Order dated 30th August, 1974 fixing 10% as collection charge could be issued under the Act and the Rules famed thereunder. The law is well-settled that the power to tax or levy any compulsory charge cannot be inferred from mere generality of the provisions contained in enabling enactment. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Sharad Kumar Jayanti Kumar Pasawalla and others (supra), has held that in a fiscal matter it will not be proper to hold that even in the absence of express provision, a delegated authority can impose tax or fee. Such power of imposition of tax and/or fee by delegated authority must be very specific and there is no scope of implied authority for imposition of such tax or fee. Delegated authority must act strictly within the parameters of the authority delegated to it under the Act and it will not be proper to bring the theory of implied intent or the concept of incidental and ancillary power in the matter of exercise of fiscal power. Paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court are being reproduced below for convenience :
Article 265 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 300A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Avinder Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab & Anr. Etc on 19 September, 1978
The view expressed by Avinder Singh's case, thus is clearly distinguishable and does not help respondents. The collection charge at the rate of 10% on basis of the Government Order dated 30th August, 1974 is being charged merely on receipt of the recovery certificate by Collector irrespective of the steps taken for recovery of the amount. Once the recovery certificate is issued the amount at the rate of 10% of the amount sought to be recovered is added and recovered as a compulsory charge which has taken more or less a shape of tax or compulsory levy, which is wholly unjustified and is in clear violation of the provisions contained in Articles 265 and 300A of the Constitution.