Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-19-1999
Reported in : 1999(3)AWC1922; (1999)2UPLBEC1356
..... exercise of the powers under section 19 of the u. p.industrial area development act, 1976 (u. p. act no. 6 of 1976) read with sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said act. the new okhla industrial development authority, with the pervious approval of the state government, hereby makes the following regulations for the levy, assessment and recovery of amenities tax on the sites ..... cannot be made out of one time income from the premium and the nominal amount of lease rent received year to year which shall hardly be sufficient to upgrade the infrastructure. in paragraph 17 of the counter-affidavit, the amenities provided and the expenditure incurred in the years 1989-90. 1990-91 and 1991-92 have been shown which does not ..... paying for it, during the last few years.11. the facts stated as above speaks for themselves.12. now we proceed to consider the keval krishna puri v. state of punjab and others, air 1980 sc 1008. the distinction between levy of fee and imposition of tax is well known and needs no repetition. the question here is whether noida can ..... noida had realised development charges from the petitioners and others, therefore, it cannot levy tax under section 11 of the act aforementioned. there is a well-settled distinction between levy of tax and imposition of tax as pointed out by the supreme court in kewal krishna puri v. state of punjab, air 1980 sc 1008. since the earlier scheme of noida was enacted .....Tag this Judgment!