Cal. HC: WB Government Directed to Finalise Minimum Wage of Tea Plantation Workers Within Six Weeks  ||  Delhi HC: Woman Cannot be Held Liable for Her Lover Committing Suicide Due to Love Failure  ||  All. HC: Medical Report Determining Age of Victim in POCSO Cases to be Submitted to Court Promptly  ||  Concerns About Rise in Low-Quality Law Colleges Raised by Bar Council of India  ||  Appointment of Technical Assistants as Assistant Engineers in Tamil Nadu PWD Upheld by Supreme Court  ||  Committee to Examine Issues Relating to Queer Community Constituted by Central Government  ||  Karnataka High Court: Accused can’t be Morally Convicted by Trial Court in Absence of Legal Proof  ||  Supreme Court in Plea for 100% EVM-VVPAT Verification: Human Interference to Create Problems  ||  Bom HC: Person Cannot be Deprived of Right to Sleep by Recording Statements at Unearthly Hours  ||  Supreme Court: Enable E-Filing & Virtual Appearance Facilities At UP District Courts    

An unsatisfied quid pro quo - (12 Aug 2015)

MANU/SC/0853/2015

Excise

The Supreme Court recently deliberated on several appeals questioning the imposition of fee on a 'per bulk litre' of industrial alcohol exported from the State in which it was manufactured. Its rationale was simple: if you charge a fee, show you are providing some service for it. Thus, fee charged from producers of industrial alcohol could be expensed in covering “nefarious activities” which bore a causal connection with the production of industrial alcohol, else it would metamorphose into a tax. In other words, there must be a perceptible correlation between what is collected and what is spent: like, for instance, posting excise officials at producers' manufacturing facilities to ensure industrial alcohol is not, illegally, made fit for human consumption.

Relevant : The series of appeals were decided largely on the principles of quid pro quo. 'What is given for that which is taken', has powered distinction between 'fee' and 'tax' for long; and it was on these long-concreted deliberations the court relied. Finding “mathematical exactitude” with the service rendered not a prerequisite, the Court nevertheless provided a judgment negating the fee, rather than a proactive assessment of what an appropriate levy may have been. Just as well, it would have then had to weigh in on the irony of levying a fee on producers of industrial alcohol, to station State officials to monitor their manufacturing activity.

Tags : EXCISE   QUID PRO QUO   FEE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved