<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1995 (11) TMI 437 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168172</link>
    <description>A court-fee levy is characterised as a fee, not a tax, where its primary purpose is to fund specific services for litigants and there is a broad, general correlation between receipts and the cost of administering civil justice. Exact arithmetical equivalence is not required, and incidental State benefit or lack of item-wise matching does not destroy the fee character. The article also notes that an ad valorem court-fee with no upper limit is not unconstitutional merely because its burden may be heavy in individual cases, unless the scheme is shown to be a colourable device or wholly lacking correlation to the service rendered. The impugned provisions were upheld and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2015 11:56:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=374684" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (11) TMI 437 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168172</link>
      <description>A court-fee levy is characterised as a fee, not a tax, where its primary purpose is to fund specific services for litigants and there is a broad, general correlation between receipts and the cost of administering civil justice. Exact arithmetical equivalence is not required, and incidental State benefit or lack of item-wise matching does not destroy the fee character. The article also notes that an ad valorem court-fee with no upper limit is not unconstitutional merely because its burden may be heavy in individual cases, unless the scheme is shown to be a colourable device or wholly lacking correlation to the service rendered. The impugned provisions were upheld and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168172</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>