https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155494 A levy under the Haryana Rural Development Act, 1986 was upheld as a valid fee because the statutory scheme showed a practical correlation between the collection and the rural development and market-related services funded from it, satisfying quid pro quo in the broad sense recognised by later Supreme Court decisions. The challenge that the levy was a tax in disguise failed. Section 11 was also upheld as a validating and anti-unjust-enrichment provision, because it operated only where the burden had been passed on to purchasers and did not revive an invalid levy. The provision was treated as preventing double benefit and directing the amounts to the public purpose for which they were collected. en-us Tue, 17 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Sep 2013 17:33:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155494 A levy under the Haryana Rural Development Act, 1986 was upheld as a valid fee because the statutory scheme showed a practical correlation between the collection and the rural development and market-related services funded from it, satisfying quid pro quo in the broad sense recognised by later Supreme Court decisions. The challenge that the levy was a tax in disguise failed. Section 11 was also upheld as a validating and anti-unjust-enrichment provision, because it operated only where the burden had been passed on to purchasers and did not revive an invalid levy. The provision was treated as preventing double benefit and directing the amounts to the public purpose for which they were collected. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 17 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155494