https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291166 The Gujarat HC held that the Corporation had no statutory authority under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act to levy recurring registration charges on advertisement agents, so that demand was invalid and the amounts collected had to be refunded. It also upheld the revised licence fee for advertisements on private properties, finding that the Act authorised regulatory control and licence fees for sky-signs and advertisements, that strict quid pro quo was not required for a regulatory fee, and that the differentiated rates were a reasonable classification not shown to be excessive, discriminatory, or a tax. en-us Thu, 02 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Oct 2020 10:24:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291166 The Gujarat HC held that the Corporation had no statutory authority under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act to levy recurring registration charges on advertisement agents, so that demand was invalid and the amounts collected had to be refunded. It also upheld the revised licence fee for advertisements on private properties, finding that the Act authorised regulatory control and licence fees for sky-signs and advertisements, that strict quid pro quo was not required for a regulatory fee, and that the differentiated rates were a reasonable classification not shown to be excessive, discriminatory, or a tax. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 02 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291166