https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105781 A cess earmarked for rural development was upheld as a fee, not a tax, because its proceeds were reserved for public purposes such as roads, bridges, storage facilities and strengthening the public distribution system. The Court applied the settled distinction between tax and fee and held that a direct quid pro quo to each payer is not required; a broad and general correlation between the levy and the services intended to be rendered is sufficient. The challenge failed because the pleadings did not allege absence of such broad correlation, but only the absence of a specific individual benefit. Compulsion did not negate the character of the levy as a fee. en-us Mon, 07 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105781 A cess earmarked for rural development was upheld as a fee, not a tax, because its proceeds were reserved for public purposes such as roads, bridges, storage facilities and strengthening the public distribution system. The Court applied the settled distinction between tax and fee and held that a direct quid pro quo to each payer is not required; a broad and general correlation between the levy and the services intended to be rendered is sufficient. The challenge failed because the pleadings did not allege absence of such broad correlation, but only the absence of a specific individual benefit. Compulsion did not negate the character of the levy as a fee. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Mon, 07 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105781