https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40070 A cess styled as a fee under the Haryana Rural Development Fund Act, 1983 was examined against the tax-fee distinction. A fee requires a real correlation between the amount collected and the cost of special services rendered to the contributors; a tax is a compulsory exaction for public purposes without such quid pro quo. Because the Fund vested in the State Government and could finance broad rural development measures with no substantial, specific benefit to dealers in the market area, the levy lacked the necessary correlation to special services. The impost therefore operated as a tax, and section 3 and the Act were unconstitutional for want of legislative competence. en-us Tue, 28 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Jul 2014 12:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40070 A cess styled as a fee under the Haryana Rural Development Fund Act, 1983 was examined against the tax-fee distinction. A fee requires a real correlation between the amount collected and the cost of special services rendered to the contributors; a tax is a compulsory exaction for public purposes without such quid pro quo. Because the Fund vested in the State Government and could finance broad rural development measures with no substantial, specific benefit to dealers in the market area, the levy lacked the necessary correlation to special services. The impost therefore operated as a tax, and section 3 and the Act were unconstitutional for want of legislative competence. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 28 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40070