Tax Recovery Officer, Vijayawada Vs. Karri Ramakrishna Reddy - Court Judgment
|Court||Supreme Court of India|
|Judge|| R.S. Pathak,; Sabyasachi Mukharji and; v.D. Tulzapurkar, JJ.|
|Reported in||145ITR739(SC); 1984Supp(1)SCC596|
|Appellant||Tax Recovery Officer, Vijayawada|
|Respondent||Karri Ramakrishna Reddy|
.....a tax. as admittedly there is no correlation between the fee charged and the service rendered, the impugned levy was not authorised and the high court was right in granting relief to the respondent. [525 b-c; 526 d-g] to say that to enable a fee strictly so called to be levied, an immediate advantage measurable in terms of money should be conferred on the payer is to take too narrow a view of the concept of a fee. the word "services" in the context has to be understood in a wide sense, as including supervision and control over the activities for the excess of which the fee is charged. the judgements of this court in the shirur mutt case,  s.c.r. 1005, and the cases following it, do not lay down that where an activity is regulated by licenses, the imposition of charges for the.....orderv.d. tulzapurkar, j.1. heard counsel.2. in all the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the smallness of the amount involved, we do not think that this court should interfere with the impugned order of the high court. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.
1. Heard Counsel.
2. In all the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the smallness of the amount involved, we do not think that this Court should interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.