https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211053 A cess collected under the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996 was treated as a fee because its proceeds were earmarked for the Welfare Fund and applied for the benefit of building and construction workers. The Court applied the settled distinction between tax and fee, holding that a tax is a compulsory exaction for general public purposes, while a fee requires only a broad and reasonable nexus between the levy and the special purpose for which it is imposed. Perfect arithmetical quid pro quo was unnecessary. The levy was therefore upheld, and the challenge to legislative competence failed. en-us Fri, 18 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Jan 2017 17:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211053 A cess collected under the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996 was treated as a fee because its proceeds were earmarked for the Welfare Fund and applied for the benefit of building and construction workers. The Court applied the settled distinction between tax and fee, holding that a tax is a compulsory exaction for general public purposes, while a fee requires only a broad and reasonable nexus between the levy and the special purpose for which it is imposed. Perfect arithmetical quid pro quo was unnecessary. The levy was therefore upheld, and the challenge to legislative competence failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 18 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211053