TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (5) TMI 175
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ution and the said regulations are also ultra vires the Town Planning Act itself. The Writ Petitioners also made a prayer before the High Court for appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Development Authority) not to enforce or implement the said regulations and not to levy or recover any amount as development fee under the said regulations. A prayer was also made for appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Development authority to refund the amount of development fees realised from the Writ Petitioners. It was contended by the Writ Petitioners that; (a) levy of development fee is not authorised by the statute and therefore the action of respondent No.1 in collecting various amounts from the petitioners in the forms of development fee was not authorised. (b) No development fee could be charged even by the State Government because there is no provision in any Entry in the List II of Schedule 7 to the Constitution. (c) The levy of development fee is ultra vires as the same does not fall under Section 119 of the Town Planning Act and the impugned regulations made by the Development Authorit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch tax and/or fee. There is no room for any intendment for imposition of compulsory payment. whenever there is any compulsory exaction of money from a citizen, nothing is to be read and nothing is to be implied. One should look fairly at the language used. The High Court has also referred to another decision of the Court in the case of Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Mohd. Yasin, AIR 1983 SC 617 wherein the compulsory nature of exaction by way of tax and fee partaking the character of tax has been reiterated and it has been held that there is no generic difference between tax and fee though broadly a tax is compulsory exaction as part of a common burden without promise of any special advantages to classes of tax payers whereas a fee is a payment for services rendered or benefit provided or privilege conferred. The High Court has held that since there is no express provision for imposition of fee and the State Government has not delegated any such power to the Development Authority to impose fees for development, the regulations framed for such imposition of fees and the demands made therefore are wholly unauthorised and illegal. Mr. Goswami, learned Counsel for the appellant, has h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2) have been referred to by Mr. Goswami, which are to the following effect: "91 (1) An appropriate authority shall have and maintain its own fund to which shall be credited- (a) all moneys received by the authority by way of grants, loans, advances or otherwise; (b) all moneys derived from its undertakings, projections and other sources; (c) such amounts of contributions from local authorities as the State Government may specify from time to time to be credited to the fund (2) the fund of an appropriate authority shall be applied towards meeting- (a) expenditure incurred in the administration of this Act; (b) cost of acquisition of land for the purpose of this Act; (c) expenditure for any development of land in the development area; (d) expenditure for such other purposes as the State Government may direct. * * * * * * * * * * * *" Mr. Goswami has submitted that clause (a) of sub- section (1) of Section 91 indicates that moneys received by the authorites may come by way of grants, loans, advances"or otherwise". He has, therefore, contended that apart from grants, loans and advances, the appropriate authority which is Development Authority in the instant case, can have fun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lied on the decision of this Court in the case of the District Council of the Jowai Autonomous District Jowai and others v. Dwet Singh Rymbai etc., AIR 1986 SC 193. In considering the validity of the Notification issued by the District Council of District, Jowai under United Khasi and Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Management and Control of Forests) Act. 1959, it has been held by this Court that in the real sense what in sought to be required under the Act is not royalty since the forest does not belong to the District Council. The amount claimed by way of royalty under the Notification is in reality compulsory exaction of money by public authority for public purpose enforeceable by law and in not a payment for service rendered. The Court has held that there is no specific reference to the power to levy and fee in respect of any matter mentioned in paragraph 3 in the 6th Schedule to the Constitution similar to the corresponding provision in Entries of List II of 7th Schedule. Considering the facts of the case, it has been held that the power to levy fees in respect of any of the matters mentioned in paragraph 3 should be necessarily implied but such fee should not be disproport....