https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168359 The Supreme Court majority held that the levy under sections 443 and 548(2) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 was a tax, not a fee, because the inspection and supervision under the Act and bye-laws were aimed at regulatory control of cinema houses and did not require a special service to the licensee. The Court further found sufficient legislative guidance for fixing the rate from the statutory scheme, including municipal duties, the municipal fund, budgetary provisions, and the levy's role in supporting the Corporation's functions. The levy was therefore upheld as valid. The dissent would have treated it as a fee and, alternatively, as invalid tax delegation for want of adequate guidance. en-us Mon, 14 Dec 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Feb 2015 17:39:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168359 The Supreme Court majority held that the levy under sections 443 and 548(2) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 was a tax, not a fee, because the inspection and supervision under the Act and bye-laws were aimed at regulatory control of cinema houses and did not require a special service to the licensee. The Court further found sufficient legislative guidance for fixing the rate from the statutory scheme, including municipal duties, the municipal fund, budgetary provisions, and the levy's role in supporting the Corporation's functions. The levy was therefore upheld as valid. The dissent would have treated it as a fee and, alternatively, as invalid tax delegation for want of adequate guidance. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 14 Dec 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168359