https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168171 A market fee levied on bamboo purchases was upheld because the statutory scheme earmarked the collections for regulated market infrastructure, supervision, and allied services benefiting the class of market participants. The governing test was broad, reasonable correlation between the levy and the services rendered, not strict mathematical quid pro quo or individual proof of benefit to each purchaser. The fact that purchasers used the produce as raw material did not negate the fee character of the levy. A proviso requiring the seller to collect the fee in trader-to-trader transactions was only a collection mechanism and did not remove the purchaser's underlying liability to bear the fee. en-us Wed, 09 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 May 2015 14:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168171 A market fee levied on bamboo purchases was upheld because the statutory scheme earmarked the collections for regulated market infrastructure, supervision, and allied services benefiting the class of market participants. The governing test was broad, reasonable correlation between the levy and the services rendered, not strict mathematical quid pro quo or individual proof of benefit to each purchaser. The fact that purchasers used the produce as raw material did not negate the fee character of the levy. A proviso requiring the seller to collect the fee in trader-to-trader transactions was only a collection mechanism and did not remove the purchaser's underlying liability to bear the fee. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 09 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168171