https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168140 The retrospective amendment to the definition of "house" validly removed the defect on which the earlier challenge depended, and the State had legislative competence to impose house-tax on buildings under the relevant constitutional entry. The levy was therefore upheld. By contrast, the so-called Permission Fee lacked statutory authority as a fee, because the Act did not authorise such a charge and the record showed no real quid pro quo between the amount collected and any service rendered or intended to be rendered. It also could not be saved as a tax. The house-tax was sustained, while the Permission Fee was struck down. en-us Thu, 01 May 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Jan 2015 14:20:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168140 The retrospective amendment to the definition of "house" validly removed the defect on which the earlier challenge depended, and the State had legislative competence to impose house-tax on buildings under the relevant constitutional entry. The levy was therefore upheld. By contrast, the so-called Permission Fee lacked statutory authority as a fee, because the Act did not authorise such a charge and the record showed no real quid pro quo between the amount collected and any service rendered or intended to be rendered. It also could not be saved as a tax. The house-tax was sustained, while the Permission Fee was struck down. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 01 May 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168140