https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344898 The Gujarat HC examined whether Gujarat could levy an import fee on denatured ethanol under Rule 52 and held that the levy was within the State's legislative competence in view of the regulatory setting governing intoxicants and industrial alcohol. However, the Court found no real supervisory activity, no material showing correlation between collections and services rendered, and no demonstrated nexus between expenditure and the amount charged. Applying the distinction between a fee and a tax, it held that the levy lacked quid pro quo, was invalid as a fee, and the import fee, demand notices and amending notification were quashed. en-us Fri, 09 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Aug 2017 17:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344898 The Gujarat HC examined whether Gujarat could levy an import fee on denatured ethanol under Rule 52 and held that the levy was within the State's legislative competence in view of the regulatory setting governing intoxicants and industrial alcohol. However, the Court found no real supervisory activity, no material showing correlation between collections and services rendered, and no demonstrated nexus between expenditure and the amount charged. Applying the distinction between a fee and a tax, it held that the levy lacked quid pro quo, was invalid as a fee, and the import fee, demand notices and amending notification were quashed. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 09 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344898