Regulatory fee on money-lending licence renewal upheld where levy supported inspection, compliance checks, and welfare regulation.

A levy imposed on renewal of a money-lender's licence was upheld as a regulatory fee because it funded inspection of accounts and verification of compliance under a welfare statute. Strict quid pro quo was not required; a reasonable nexus between the fee and the regulatory burden was sufficient. The levy was not converted into a tax merely because it was measured by maximum capital, credited to the general fund, or not uniform. The challenge failed because there was no material showing the levy was excessive or disproportionate to the supervisory infrastructure required.

---

---

Issues: Whether the levy under Section 9-A of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946, as amended, was a valid regulatory fee or an impermissible tax in disguise, and whether the levy was arbitrary or excessive.

Analysis: The levy was imposed on renewal of a money-lender's licence and was linked to inspection of accounts and verification of compliance with the Act and the Rules. The statutory scheme under Section 18, read with Rules 11, 16 and 17, required maintenance and inspection of books and capital accounts before renewal. The Act was a regulatory and social welfare measure intended to control money-lending practices and protect debtors. In the case of a regulatory fee, strict quid pro quo is not indispensable; a reasonable relationship between the levy and the services or regulatory burden is sufficient. The fact that the amount was measured with reference to maximum capital, that receipts were credited to the general fund, or that the fee was not uniform did not by itself convert the levy into a tax. The Court also found no material to show that the levy was excessive or disproportionate, particularly in light of the regulatory infrastructure required and the meagre receipts compared with expenditure.

Conclusion: The levy under Section 9-A was upheld as a valid regulatory fee and not a tax in disguise; the challenge based on absence of quid pro quo, arbitrariness, excessiveness, and invalidity failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A levy imposed for inspection and regulatory supervision under a welfare statute is valid as a fee if it bears a reasonable nexus to the regulatory function and is not shown to be excessive, even though strict quid pro quo and strict uniformity are absent.

---