Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.31 seconds)The M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956
Section 133 in The M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Secretary, Government Of Madras, ... vs Zenith Lamp & Electrical Ltd on 10 November, 1972
10. It is also argued that the impugned fee is not levied at a uniform rate and the rate varies according to the plinth area of the proposed building which goes to show that it is a tax and not fee. It is pointed out in the same centext that the rate of fee is higher if the proposed building is a shop or meant for business purposes. It is true that normally a fee is uniform and no account is taken of the paying capacity of the recipients of services, but absence of uniformity will not make it a tax if correlation is established between the total collections and the expenditure incurred for rendering the services. S. T. Swamiar v. Commr-H. R. and C. E. AIR 1963 SC 966 at p. 975; Govt. of Madras v. Zenith Lamps (supra).
State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs The Salvation Army, Western India ... on 10 February, 1975
Similarly in State of Maharashtra v. Salvation Army (supra) 62% of the amount of fee was spent for rendering services and the Court held that requirement of correlation was satisfied- Having regard to these cases it has to be held that what is necessary is only an approximate correlation which is present in the instant case. Moreover, the learned Deputy Advocate-General lias stated before us that the Corporation will not in future re-cover the fee at a higher rate for buildings to be used as business premises and that the fee for these buildings also will be recovered at the normal rate. This stand is consistent with justice because the purpose for which a building is constructed makes no difference to the Corporation on the question of expenses in rendering the services for which the fee is charged. This equation of rate of fee will further reduce the difference between the amount of fee and the expenditure for rendering services. The necessary correlation, therefore, is fully established.
Section 294 in The M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 301 in The M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 295 in The M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Nagar Mahapalika Varanasi vs Durga Das Bhattacharya & Ors on 4 March, 1968
In Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi v. Durga Das (supra) the Supreme Court held thai a licence fee charged under the U. P. Municipalities Act from rickshaw owners and rickshaw drivers was excessive as nearly 66% of the collections were used for paving bylanes and for lighting streets which were ordinary municipal services for the benefit of the general public. But the case further shows that the fee could be charged for payment of salary to the staff maintained for issuing licences and inspecting rickshaws as also for making provision for parking grounds.