https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174347 The Board's authority to collect infrastructure development charges through the metropolitan development authority was upheld because the rate had already been fixed by the statutory body and the collection arrangement was treated as an administrative mechanism, not an impermissible delegation of levy power. The challenge to the levy itself, however, required reconsideration because a fee must show a fair correlation with the services rendered, and the record did not disclose the basis for the rate or the link between the charge and water supply and sewerage infrastructure. The validity of the levy on the principle of quid pro quo was therefore left open for fresh consideration on remand. en-us Tue, 17 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Sep 2017 12:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174347 The Board's authority to collect infrastructure development charges through the metropolitan development authority was upheld because the rate had already been fixed by the statutory body and the collection arrangement was treated as an administrative mechanism, not an impermissible delegation of levy power. The challenge to the levy itself, however, required reconsideration because a fee must show a fair correlation with the services rendered, and the record did not disclose the basis for the rate or the link between the charge and water supply and sewerage infrastructure. The validity of the levy on the principle of quid pro quo was therefore left open for fresh consideration on remand. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 17 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174347