https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400245 Section 386(2) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act was treated as a valid enabling provision, not unconstitutional excessive delegation, because it operates with corporate sanction, statutory controls, and supervisory oversight that provide adequate legislative guidance. The licence fee for advertisement hoardings on private property was characterised as a regulatory licence fee, not a tax in disguise, and it was held that strict quid pro quo is not required where the levy is tied to regulation and has statutory foundation. Deletion of Entry 55 of List II did not destroy the fee power, which was traced to the constitutional entry for fees, and Article 243ZF did not invalidate the levy. The revised fee challenge therefore failed, though quantum issues were left to the State Government. en-us Tue, 20 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Oct 2020 14:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400245 Section 386(2) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act was treated as a valid enabling provision, not unconstitutional excessive delegation, because it operates with corporate sanction, statutory controls, and supervisory oversight that provide adequate legislative guidance. The licence fee for advertisement hoardings on private property was characterised as a regulatory licence fee, not a tax in disguise, and it was held that strict quid pro quo is not required where the levy is tied to regulation and has statutory foundation. Deletion of Entry 55 of List II did not destroy the fee power, which was traced to the constitutional entry for fees, and Article 243ZF did not invalidate the levy. The revised fee challenge therefore failed, though quantum issues were left to the State Government. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 20 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400245