SRI KRISHNA DAS versus TOWN AREA COMMITTEE, CHIRGAON

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 13 · Decided: 20-03-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SAIKIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SRI KRISHNA DAS 
A 
v. 
TOWN AREA COMMITTEE, CHIRGAON 
~--
MARCH 20, 1990 
[K.N. SAIKIA AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.] 
B 
Town Areas Act 1914-Section 38 and Bye Laws of the Town 
Area Committee Chirgaon-Weighing dues-Payment of-User of 
;-
market committee-Validity of weighing dues-Whether 'tax' or 'fee'! 
)' 
, 
The appellant is a commission agent, engaged in the business of c 
....-
sale and purchase of grains, rice, oil-seeds etc. in Chirgaon, District 
Jhansi. By a notification issued under s. 38(1) of the United Provinces 
Town Areas Act, 1914, the provisions of Section 298(2)(F)(d) of the 
U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 were extended to the Town Area ofChir-
'-.---
gaon, as a result of which, the Panchayat of Chirgaon was empowered 
to make bye-laws for the establishment, regulation· and inspection of 
D 
market and for the proper and cleanly conduct of business therein. Later 
by Section 4 of the U.P. Provinces Town Area (Amendment) Act, the 
word "Panchayat" wherever it occurred in the Principal' Act was 
substituted by the word 'Committee'. In pursuance of the powrs confer-
red on him the District Magistrate, Jhansi fremed bye-laws dated 
18.11.1934 for the regulation of the market·in Chirgaon which inter alia 
E 
> 
provided that weighing dues shall be charged at different rates on 
"-. 
various articles that came to the Town Area for sale at rates specified 
therein. Since the appellant was a dealer in some of these commodities, 
he was served with a notice calling upon him to pay Rs.1892/26 as 
...--
weighing dues for the period from 1.5.1962 to 30.6.1962. The appellant 
, challenged the notice by means of a writ petition in the Allahabad High 
F 
~ 
Court. A learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ 
petition taking the view that the demand made by the respondent was 
> .,.. 
purely a measure of taxation. Special Appeal against the said order was 
also dismissed by the High Court. Hence this appeal by special leave. 
The main contentions of the appellant, as urged before the High 
G 
... 
Court, as have be~n repeated before this Court are; (i) that the bye-laws 
were invalid; (ii) that the Town Area Committee had no power to 
impose such tax; as the Act did not empower the TAC to levy and collect 
.. lt· 
weighing dues; (iii) that the weighing dues were discriminatory because 
-~ 
of the exemptions; (iv) that the weighing dues were not a tax but a fee 
which could not be charged without quid pro quo and (v) that there· was 
H 
13 
14 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 1990] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
double taxation. It was also urged that the imposition of weighing dues 
is tantamount to illegal extraction without the authority of law. The 
·~ 
respondent, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the High 
Court; 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
B 
HELD: Under the Indian Constitution the State Government's 
power to levy a tax is not identical with that of its power to levy a fee. 
•\ 
While the powers to levy taxes is conferred on the State Legislatures by 
--( 
~ 
the various entries in List II, in it there is Entry 66 relating to fees, 
empowring the State Government to levy fees 'in. respect of any -of.the 
I 
matters in this List, but not including fees taken in any Court'. The -
c result is that each State Legislature has the power, to levy fees, which is 
co-extensive with its powers to legislate with respect to substantive 
matters and it may levy a fee with reference to the services that would rY. .. 
be rendered by the State under such law. The State may also delegate 
such a power to local authority. [UC-DJ 
D 
A fee is a payment levied by an authority in respect of services 
performed by it for the benefit of the payer, while a tax is payable for 
the common benefits conferred by the authority on all tax payers. [2IF] 
'While there is no quid pro quo between a tax payer and the 
' 
E authority in case of a tax, there is a necessary co-relittion between ·fee 
.J-
collected and the service intended to be rendered. Of course the quid 
pro quo need not be understood in mathematical equivalence but only 
in a fair correspondence between the two, a broad co-relationship is all 
that is necessary. [llGJ 
·-... 
~ 
~ 
F 
Courts caiinot reveiw the wisdom or advisability or expediency of 
a tax as the court has no concern with the policy of legislation, so long 
they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution. It is 
·----........ 
only where there is abuse of its powers and transgression of

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.