https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281476 Supervision charges under the market law were recoverable only if the statutory preconditions were established, including proof of the State's order, appointment of supervisory staff, and actual supervisory services in the market area. The Court applied the principle of equivalence and held that, without a factual basis for quantification and recovery, the levy could not be sustained by the Market Committee acting as the State's agent. Interest on delayed payment of market fees and supervision charges also required an express statutory foundation; in the absence of such authority, the demand for interest could not be upheld on equitable grounds. The statutory levy and associated interest claim were therefore not sustainable on the record. en-us Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Jun 2019 15:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281476 Supervision charges under the market law were recoverable only if the statutory preconditions were established, including proof of the State's order, appointment of supervisory staff, and actual supervisory services in the market area. The Court applied the principle of equivalence and held that, without a factual basis for quantification and recovery, the levy could not be sustained by the Market Committee acting as the State's agent. Interest on delayed payment of market fees and supervision charges also required an express statutory foundation; in the absence of such authority, the demand for interest could not be upheld on equitable grounds. The statutory levy and associated interest claim were therefore not sustainable on the record. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281476