<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (12) TMI 871 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783331</link>
    <description>A municipal licence fee for sky-signs, hoardings and advertisements was upheld as a regulatory fee within the municipal law framework, because the licensing provisions authorised fee fixation, renewal and supervision beyond a mere paper permission. The charge was held not to be a tax, since modern fee doctrine requires only a broad correlation with regulatory expenses and oversight, not a strict quid pro quo. The GST regime and deletion of Entry 55 from List II did not extinguish the fee-levying power, and the enhancement rate with ex post facto Corporation sanction was valid because the statute did not require prior approval and the rate was not shown to be arbitrary.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2025 08:39:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=871492" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 871 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783331</link>
      <description>A municipal licence fee for sky-signs, hoardings and advertisements was upheld as a regulatory fee within the municipal law framework, because the licensing provisions authorised fee fixation, renewal and supervision beyond a mere paper permission. The charge was held not to be a tax, since modern fee doctrine requires only a broad correlation with regulatory expenses and oversight, not a strict quid pro quo. The GST regime and deletion of Entry 55 from List II did not extinguish the fee-levying power, and the enhancement rate with ex post facto Corporation sanction was valid because the statute did not require prior approval and the rate was not shown to be arbitrary.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783331</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>