A S LONI Vs. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL JAMAKHANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY a notification published in the gazette on 4th of february, 1999, objections to the revised rates of licence fee applicable with effect from 1-4-1999 were invited from those interested in opposing the revision. No objections having been received, the council passed a resolution on 31st of march, 1999 revising the rates of fee for different trade and professional licences, which it is competent to issue. A notification issued on the same date brought into force the revised fee structure, aggrieved whereof the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) MR. Nargund, counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously argued that the earlier fee of Rs. 50/- had been suddenly hiked ten times and fixed at Rs. 500/- for all such traders, as are carrying on business in cloth, cotton and art silk etc. This increase was, according to the learned counsel, neither justified nor otherwise sustainable having regard to the nature of the service rendered by the council to the licensees. Relying upon a decision of this court in k. Pundalika nayak v city municipal council, mangalore and others, he contended that the levy had ceased to be a fee and could therefore be interfered with.

(3.) DECISIONS of the Supreme Court on what constitutes and distinguishes a fee from a tax are a legion. Reference to some of those decisions only should in my opinion suffice. In municipal corporation of Delhi and others v mohd. Yasin, the court declared that there was no generic difference between a tax and a fee, though broadly a tax is a compulsory exaction as part of a common burden without promise of any special advantages to the tax-payers whereas a fee is a payment for services rendered, benefit provided or privilege conferred. The court held that though, a fee must have relation to the services rendered, or the advantages conferred, such relation need not be direct. A mere casual relation would be enough. Further, courts examining the character of a levy need not assume the role of a cost accountant nor is it necessary to weigh too meticulously the cost of services rendered against the amount of fee collected so as to evenly balance the two. This position was reiterated in sreenivasa general traders and others v state of Andhra Pradesh and others, and in i. t. c. limited and others v state of Karnataka and others.