Surcharge cannot attach to a conditional exemption payment where the amount is not tax, fee, or a lump sum in lieu of tax.

A 1% payment required as a condition for availing exemption under a Rajasthan sales tax notification was treated as neither tax, fee, nor a lump sum in lieu of tax. Surcharge under Section 13 applied only to those principal levies and could not attach to a mere condition for exemption. The label "exemption fee" did not change the payment's character, because a true fee requires a reasonable correlation with services and quid pro quo, which was absent. The result was that the 1% amount remained a condition of exemption and did not attract surcharge.

---

---

Issues: Whether surcharge was leviable under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 on the 1% amount paid by the assessee as a condition for availing exemption from tax under the notification issued under Section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.

Analysis: The amount of 1% of the works contract value was not a tax, not a fee, and not a lump sum in lieu of tax. Surcharge under Section 13 was payable only on tax, fee, or sum in lieu of tax, and surcharge is only an additional impost attached to the principal levy. The exemption notification granted exemption from tax on works contracts and merely imposed a condition for availing that exemption. The use of the expression "exemption fee" in the notification did not alter the true character of the payment, because a fee must bear a reasonable correlation with services rendered and an element of quid pro quo, which was absent here. The payment was therefore only a condition attached to the exemption and could not attract surcharge.

Conclusion: Surcharge was not leviable on the 1% amount paid under the exemption notification, and the revisional challenge failed.

---