Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 992 of 2003
PETITIONER:
Sona Chandi Oal Committee & Ors.
RESPONDENT:
State of Maharashtra
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/12/2004
BENCH:
ASHOK BHAN & A.K.Mathur
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
BHAN, J.
This appeal by grant of leave is directed against the judgment
and order of the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur, in Writ
Petition No. 314 of 1993. The High Court in the impugned judgment
has upheld the validity of provisions of Section 9-A of the Bombay
Money Lenders Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’) as
amended by Maharashtra Act No. 7 of 1992 which, according to the
appellants, who are licensed money lenders, is ultra vires the
provisions of the Constitution of India insofar as it seeks to levy
inspection fee for the renewal of money lender’s licence. Appellants
therefore seek striking down of Section 9-A of the Act and consequent
thereto the quashing of the demand notice for payment of inspection
fee.
Under Section 3 of the Act, the State Government has the power
to appoint Registrar General, Registrars and Assistant Registrars for
the purpose of exercising powers and performing duties under the
Act. Under Section 6 every money lender has to submit an application
in the prescribed form to the Assistant Registrar of the area, within the
limits of which he carries on or intends to carry on his business, for
the grant of licence to carry on business of money lending every year
on or before such date as may be prescribed by the State Government.
The money lender is required to deposit licence fee [which has been
fixed at Rs. 200/-] as per the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 6
of the Act. The application so made is required to be processed under
Section 8 of the Act. Section 9 prescribes the term of licence to be up to
31st July from the date on which the licence is granted. The licence is
made valid until the application for renewal of licence, if made to the
Registrar within the prescribed time, is disposed of.
Section 9-A, in respect of levy of inspection fee, was introduced
by Bombay Act No. 50 of 1959 which came into force w.e.f. 26.9.1959.
The first amendment to Section 9-A was made by the Maharashtra Act
No. 76 of 1975 which came into force from 26.7.1976. Section 9-A was
amended for the second time by Maharashtra Act No. 7 of 1992 which
came into force w.e.f. 28.4.1992. The amended provisions of Section
9-A, with which we are concerned in this appeal, are as under :-
"9-A. Levy of inspection fee :-
(1) An inspection fee shall, in addition to the
licence fee leviable under Section 6, be
levied from a money lender applying for a
renewal of a licence at the rate of one per
cent of the maximum capital utilised by him
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9
during the period of the licence sought to be
renewed or rupees five thousand,
whichever is lesser.
(2) In default of payment of an inspection fee
leviable under sub-section (1), it shall be
recoverable from the defaulter in the same
manner as an arrears of land revenue.
Explanation - For the purposes of this section,
"maximum capital" means the highest total amount
of the capital sum which may remain invested in
the money lending business on any day during the
period of a licence."
Rule 11 of the Bombay Money Lenders Rules, 1959 (hereinafter
referred to as ’the Rules’) deals with the levy of inspection fees and the
same reads as under :-
"11. Levy of inspection fee :-
(1) On receipt of an application for the renewal
of a licence, the Assistant Registrar to whom
the application has been made, shall call
upon the applicant to produce his accounts
for inspection. He shall then assess the
inspection fee payable under Section 9-A in
respect of inspection of books of accounts
and call upon the applicant to pay the
inspection fee in the manner prescribed in
Rule 10. The inspection fee shall be paid
within ten days of the receipt of the order in
this behalf by the applicant or within such
further period not exceeding thirty days in
the aggregate of the receipt of the order as
the Registrar may grant in that behalf.
(2) The Registrar may suo motu or on an
application made in that behalf revise
the order of assessment made under
sub-rule (1) if he thinks fit."
Inspection fee is payable at the time of renewal of licence and the
charge of inspection fee is @ 1% of the maximum capital utilized by
the money lender during the period of licence sought to be renewed or
Rs. 5,000/- whichever is less. The term ’maximum capital’ has been
explained in explanation to Section 9-A to mean highest amount of
capital sum which may remain invested in the money lending
business on any day during the period of the licence. Therefore,
according to the appellants, amount of inspection fee differs from
money lender to money lender and depends upon the utilization of
the maximum capital on any day during the period of licence.
Money lenders are required to maintain books of accounts under
Section 18 of the Act read with Rule 16 and 17 of the Rules. Section 18
deals with the duty of the money lender to keep accounts and
maintain cash books and the ledger in such form and in the manner as
may be prescribed as also to furnish copies to debtors as well as
Assistant Registrars. The section also provides that money lender
upon repayment of loan in full shall make entries indicating payment
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9
or cancellation and discharge every mortgage, restore every pledge,
return every note and cancel or reassign every assignment given by
the debtor as security for loan. Rules 16 and 17 read as under :-
"Rule 16 ? Forms of cash book, ledger and of
statement and receipt under Section 18 \026 The cash
book and ledger to be maintained by a money
lender under sub-section (1) of Section 18 shall be
either in Form Nos. 4 and 7 respectively or in Form
Nos. 5 and 6 respectively. The statement under
clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 18 shall be in
Form No. 8. The receipts under sub-sections (3)
and (4) of Section 18 shall be in Form Nos. 9 and 10
respectively.
Rule 17 ? Capital Account \026 Every money lender
shall open a capital account in Form No. 11 for the
purpose of Section 9-A."
All these accounts are required to be verified before the grant of
renewal of the licence.
The State Legislature is competent to make laws for such State or
any part thereof with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List
II of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. Under Entry 30 of
List II the State Legislature can make laws on the subjects of money
lending, money lenders and relief of agricultural indebtedness. The
same reads:-
"30. Money lending and money lenders; relief of
agricultural indebtedness."
Entry 66 which reads:
"66. Fees in respect of any of the matters in this List,
but not including fees taken in any court."
authorises the State Legislature to levy fees in respect of any of the
matters enumerated in List II excluding the fees taken in any court.
Appellants’ case is that under Article 265 of the Constitution there is a
prohibition for imposition or levy or collection of tax by the State,
except by authority of law, and that fee can be imposed only in respect
of the subjects specified in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution. Under the List II, State Legislature is not competent to
levy any tax in respect of subject matters of money lending or money
lenders. Thus, according to them, the State Legislature is competent to
make laws laying down fees only in respect of items enumerated in
Entry 30 of List II and not the tax. Though the provisions of Section 9-
A are styled as inspection fee, it is in fact the collection of tax by the
State without any authority of law. According to the appellants, there
is a difference between tax and fee and fees are levied essentially for
the services rendered and as such there is an element of quid pro quo
between the person who pays the fee and the public authority which
imposes it. Quid pro quo is an essential element in a fee and since there
is no quid pro quo, the levy is in the nature of tax which the State
Government is not competent to impose.
Another submission made on behalf of the appellants is that the
work of inspection is required to be done by the respondent authority
to see that the terms of licence granted earlier are observed and the
accounts required are properly maintained as per the provisions of the
Rule. Therefore, there is no question of co-relation of the amount of
levy with the inspection fee or licence fee to cost of any service. The
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9
inspection of books of accounts of money lenders can by no stretch of
imagination be considered service rendered to the money lenders
either for the grant of licence or for renewal of the same. Levy of
licence fee or inspection fee is, in fact, a tax which the State
Government is not empowered to impose. It is also alleged by the
appellants that maximum levy of Rs. 5,000/- is arbitrary and violative
of fundamental rights granted under Article 14 of the Constitution
inasmuch as it has no reference whatsoever to any service and no
inspection fee is liable to be imposed or recovered from money lenders
when already Section 6 provides for levy of licence fee. Appellants
cannot be made to licence fee as well as inspection fee as inspection of
books is for renewal of the licence. Licence fee would cover the
charges for inspection as well. Since the levy is credited in the
General Public Funds Account and not appropriated towards any
specific service rendered, goes to show that the levy is in fact in the
nature of a tax. The levy is arbitrary and disproportionate to the so-
called services rendered.
Another point raised by them is that inspection fee could not be
charged for the period 1.8.1991 to 31.7.1992 as the amendment came
into force w.e.f. 28.4.1992 by which time more than half of the licence
period had already expired. There was no justification whatsoever to
recover the inspection fee retrospectively w.e.f. 1.8.1991. The notices
which have been received by the appellants for recovery of inspection
fee for the years 1992-1993 were also put to challenge.
The respondent-State in its response has pointed out that the Act
was enacted to regulate and control money lending business so as to
eradicate the mal practices in the money lending business and to
protect the interest of debtors. Thus, according to the respondent, the
purpose of the Act is not limited to providing services to the money
lenders but it is also regulatory in nature for the protection of the
interests of the debtors as well. The work under the Act is to regulate
and control the money lending business and to protect the debtors
from mal practices in the business by detecting illegal money lending
etc. Since the fee was regulatory in nature, quid pro quo for the service
rendered to the person on whom the fee was imposed was not
required to be proved. Relying upon some judgments of this Court, it
was averred that in case the fee was regulatory in nature there need be
no direct advantage or service rendered to the person on whom the fee
is imposed, a mere casual relation or indirect service may be sufficient.
The special benefit or advantage to the payers of fees may even be
secondary as compared with the primary object of public interest.
That primary object of the Act is to regulate the money lending
business in public interest to protect and improve the economic
conditions of bulk of rural population and poorer sections of
population of towns and cities and to protect them from exploitation.
It is further submitted that though the upper limit of Rs. 500/-
has been increased to Rs. 5,000/- by the impugned amendment, the
rate of 1% of maximum capital utilised by the money lender has been
kept the same. It is stated that there are about 5600 money lenders in
the State of Maharashtra out of which about 2200 money lenders are
from Bombay and Greater Bombay. Even in Bombay in case of more
than 50% money lenders the maximum capital as defined in the Act is
below Rs. 50,000/-. The same in case of 20% is between Rs. 1 lac to Rs.
3 lac and for 10% above Rs. 3.00 lac. In the remaining parts of
Maharshtra about 70 to 75 per cent money lenders are having
maximum capital below Rs. 50,000/-. Since the fees are to be collected
at the rate of 1 per cent subject to the maximum of Rs. 5,000/- in
majority of the cases there will be no difference in the inspection fee
payable by them. In the case of money lenders who have invested
capital of Rs. 50,000/- there will be no increase in the inspection fee
payable by them. It is, therefore, submitted that the contention raised
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9
by the appellants that the increase was arbitrary or excessive are
devoid of any substance.
The staff and the officers of the Department have to visit the
places of money lending business, inspect accounts and other matters
relating to business. According to them, the inspection fee is charged
not for rendering services only but also for regulating and controlling
money lending business. The increase in the levy is justified on the
ground of heavy increase in the Pay and Allowance of the
Government Servants after 1991 who are employed for regulating and
controlling the activities under the Act. The respondent has also
pointed out that the strength of the staff looking after the money
lending business has been considerably and significantly increased in
the recent past and receipts from the inspection fee and licence fee are
very meagre in the range of Rs. 25 to 30 lakhs every year which are not
sufficient to meet the expenses incurred for the staff looking after the
money lending business.
The High Court came to the conclusion that there was no merit
in the contentions raised by the appellants. It was held that there was
nexus between the fee charged and the service rendered. The fee
charged was regulatory in nature to further the objects of the Act so as
to control and supervise the functioning of the money lenders in order
to protect the debtors. Such an exercise was a must for fulfilling the
purpose of the Act for which infrastructure was required. Taking note
of the heavy increase in the Pay and Allowances of Establishment and
the receipt from inspection and licence fee, it was observed that the
same were meagre and not even sufficient to meet the expenses
incurred for the staff looking after the money lending business.
The basic question which we are called upon to decide is
whether the fee of the nature impugned before us is, as a matter of
fact, a tax in the guise of fee and whether it is so excessive or
unreasonable as to loose the character of fee.
Shri G.L. Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel, placing heavy reliance
on the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Corporation of
Calcutta & Anr. v. Liberty Cinema [(1965) 2 SCR 477] in support of
his submission contended that quid pro quo is a must in the case of fee
and in the absence of the same, the levy would be deemed to be a tax.
Since in the present case there is no quid pro quo and no benefit is being
rendered to the person paying the fee, the levy imposed is in the
nature of tax though described as fee. Facts of the case were, under the
Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, a person was required to take a licence
from the Corporation to run a cinema house for public amusement.
Under Section 548(2), for every licence under the Act, a licence fee
could be charged at such rate as fixed from time to time by the
Corporation. In 1948 the Corporation fixed fees on the basis of the
annual valuation of the cinema halls. The assessee who was the owner
and licensee of the cinema theatre had been paying licence fee @ Rs.
400/- per year. In 1958 the Corporation by a resolution changed the
basis of assessment of the fee. Under the new method the fee was to
be assessed at rates prescribed per show according to the sanctioned
seating capacity of the cinema houses and the assessee had to pay a fee
of Rs. 6,000/- per year. The assessee filed a petition in the High Court
for the issuance of a writ for quashing the resolution. The writ petition
was allowed. The Corporation came up in appeal to this Court, which
was accepted. The case of the Corporation was that the levy was a tax
and not a fee. Accepting the plea of the Corporation, it was observed
that in order to make a levy a fee for services rendered, the levy must
confer special benefits to the person on whom it is imposed. The levy
under Section 548(2) was not a "fee in return for services" as the Act
did not provide for any services of a special kind being rendered,
resulting in benefits to the person on whom it was imposed. The levy
was held to be a tax.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9
In The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v.
Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt [(1954) SCR
1005] this Court enumerated the different characteristics of tax and fee.
It was held that the tax was levied as a part of common burden while a
fee was a payment for special benefits or privilege to the person
paying the same. Though it was not possible to formulate a definition
of fee that could apply to all cases as there were different kinds of fee,
but a fee may generally be defined as a charge for special service
rendered to individuals by some governmental agency. It was
observed that amount of fee levied is supposed to be based on the
expenses incurred by the Government in rendering the service.
Pointing out the distinction between a tax and fee, it was observed that
tax is a compulsory exaction of money by a public authority for public
purposes enforceable by law and is not payment for services rendered.
In Chief Commissioner, Delhi v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills
Co. Ltd. [(1978) 2 SCC 367], it was held by this Court that levy of fee
should be in consideration of certain services which the individuals
accept either willingly or unwillingly and that the collection from such
levy should not be set apart or merged with the general revenue of the
State to be spent for general public purpose but should be
appropriated for the specific purpose for which the levy is being
made.
In Om Parkash Agarwal v. Giri Raj Kishori [(1986) 1 SCC 722] it
was held that levy imposed could not be treated as a fee and was tax
primarily because the collection so made was being utilised not for
fulfilling the objects of the Act under which the collection is
authorised, but for the general requirement of the State’s functions.
Shri Sanghi also placed reliance on a recent judgment of this
Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow, U.P. v. Chhata
Sugar Co. Ltd. [(2004) 3 SCC 466] wherein the question was whether
administrative charges collected by the sugar factory for molasses sold
from the buyers/allottees on behalf of the State Government in terms
of Section 8(5) of the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964
constituted a duty or impost in the nature of a tax and consequently,
not includible in the value as defined in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of
the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court, after analysing the provisions
of the Act, held that sugar factory was merely a collecting agent of
administrative charges for the State Government. The administrative
charges were not a component of a consideration received by the
sugar factory and did not form part of the revenue of the sugar
factory. The administrative charges could not be appropriated to the
revenue account of the sugar factory and, therefore, there was no
element of quid pro quo as far as the administrative charges in the
hands of the sugar factory are concerned. The administrative charges
were thus held to be a tax and not a fee.
A three Judge Bench of this Court in B.S.E. Brokers’ Forum,
Bombay and Others v. Securities and Exchange Board of India and
Others [(2001) 3 SCC 482], after considering a large number of
authorities, has held that much ice has melted in Himalayas after the
rendering of the earlier judgments as there was a sea change in the
judicial thinking as to the difference between a tax and a fee since
then. Placing reliance on the following judgments of this Court in the
last 20 years, namely, Sreenivasa General Traders Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh, (supra); City Corporation of Calicut Vs.
Thachambalath Sadasivan, (1985) 2 SCC 112; Sirsilk Ltd. Vs. Textiles
Committee, (1989) Supp. 1 SCC 168; Commissioner & Secretary to
Government Commercial Taxes & Religious Endowments
Department Vs. Sree Murugan Financing Corporation Coimbatore,
(1992) 3 SCC 488; Secretary to Government of Madras Vs.
P.R.Sriramulu, (1996) 1 SCC 345; Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. Vs.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9
State of U.P., (1997) 2 SCC 715; Research Foundation for Science,
Technology & Ecology Vs. Ministry of Agriculture, (1999) 1 SCC 655
and Secunderabad Hyderabad Hotel Owners’ Association Vs.
Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, (1999) 2 SCC 274, it
was held that the traditional concept of quid pro quo in a fee has
undergone considerable transformation. So far as the regulatory fee is
concerned, the service to be rendered is not a condition precedent and
the same does not loose the character of a fee provided the fee so
charged is not excessive. It was not necessary that service to be
rendered by the collecting authority should be confined to the
contributories alone. The levy does not cease to be a fee merely
because there is an element of compulsion or coerciveness present in
it, nor is it a postulate of a fee that it must have a direct relation to the
actual service rendered by the authority to each individual who
obtains the benefit of the service. The quid pro quo in the strict sence
was not always a sine qua non for a fee. All that is necessary is that
there should be a reasonable relationship between the levy of fee and
the services rendered. It was observed that it was not necessary to
establish that those who pay the fee must receive direct or special
benefit or advantage of the services rendered for which the fee was
being paid. It was held that if one who is liable to pay, receives
general benefit from the authority levying the fee, the element of
service required for collecting fee is satisfied.
We need not refer to the law laid down by this Court in each of
the judgments which have been cited as the same have been analysed
and discussed at length by this Court in B.S.E. Brokers’ Forum,
Bombay and Others case (supra).
The Bombay Money-Lenders Act, 1946 was enacted during pre-
independence period by the elected Government to control and
regulate money lending. Money lenders were fleecing the poor
peasants, tenants, agricultural labourers and salaried workers who
were unable to repay loans. The agricultural debtors were loosing
their lands, crops or other securities to the money lenders. To arrest
this exploitation, the Money-Lenders Act was enacted to improve the
economic conditions of the bulk of the rural population and the poorer
sections of the population in towns and cities. Under the Act it was
made mandatory first to take a licence to do the business of money
lending on payment of a licence fee of Rs. 200/-. Inspection fee is
levied for renewal of licence and for that purpose it is necessary that
the records maintained by the money lenders should be thoroughly
examined in order to satisfy whether all the registers are maintained
properly in accordance with the rules and it is only after the satisfying
that no irregularities are committed, the money lender becomes
entitled to get the renewal of his licence. ’Inspection fee’ has been
defined in Section 2(5-A) of the Bombay Money-Lenders Act, 1946 to
mean the fee leviable under Section 9A in respect of inspection of
books of account of a money-lender. Section 2(7) defines the ’licence’
to mean licence granted under this Act and according to Section 2(8)
’licence fee’ means fee payable in respect of a licence. Renewal of
licence is not automatic and can be refused on the grounds specified in
Section 8. In order to ensure that the money lenders comply with the
provisions of the Act and the Rules on which renewal of the licence
can be refused under clauses (b) and (c) of Section 8, inspection of the
records maintained by the money lenders is absolutely necessary and
must. Rule 11 provides that on receipt of any application for renewal
of a licence, the Assistant Registrar, to whom the application has been
made, shall call upon the applicant to produce his accounts for
inspection. He shall then assess the inspection fee payable under
Section 9A in respect of inspection of books of accounts and call upon
the applicant to pay the inspection fee in the manner prescribed in
Rule 10. Under Section 18, every money lender is required to keep
and maintain a cash book and a ledger in such form and in such
manner as may be prescribed. Under sub-section (2) every money
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9
lender has to deliver or cause to be delivered to the debtor within 30
days from the date on which a loan is made, a statement in any
recognised language saying in clear and distinct terms the amount and
date of loan and its maturity, the nature of the security, if any, for the
loan, the name and address of the debtor and of the money lender and
the rate of interest charged. Clause (b) of this sub-section provides
that upon repayment of loan in full, the money lender is required to
mark indelibly every paper signed by the debtor with words
indicating payment or cancellation and discharge every mortgage,
restore every pledge, return every note and cancel or reassign every
assignment given by the debtor as security for the loan. Sub-section
(3) provides that no money lender shall receive any payment from a
debtor on account of any loan without giving him a plain and
complete receipt for the payment. Money lender under sub-section (4)
is debarred from accepting from a debtor any article as a pawn, pledge
or security for a loan without giving him a plain signed receipt for the
same with its description, estimated value, the amount of loan
advanced against it and such other particulars as may be prescribed.
Under Section 19, every money lender is required to deliver or cause
to be delivered in every year to each of his debtors a legible statement
of such debtor’s accounts signed by the money lender or his agent of
any amount that may be outstanding against such debtor. Rule 16
provides for the forms of cash book, ledger and of statement and
receipt under Section 18. Rule 17 provides for opening of a capital
account in Form 11 for the purposes of Section 9A. The inspection of
records, thus by itself, provides for service rendered by the State to the
money lenders which is done in connection with their request to
renew the licences. It is necessary to find out before granting renewal
of the licence that the applicant has complied with the provisions of
the Act and the Rules and that he has not made any wilful default in
complying with or knowingly acted in contravention of any
requirements of the Act.
This is the direct service rendered to the money lenders as the
renewal of licence depends upon the inspection of their accounts
which is required to be carried out under the Act.
This apart the fee charged is regulatory in nature to control and
supervise the functioning of the money lending business to protect the
debtors the vast majority of which are poor peasants, tenants,
agricultural labourers and salaried workers who are unable to repay
their loans. The object of the Act is to control the money lending
business and protect the debtors from the malpractices in the business
by detecting illegal money lending. This exercise is a must to carry out
the object of the Act for which lot of infrastructure is required. The
duty of the staff and the officers of the Department is to visit the places
of money lending business, inspect the accounts and other matters
relating to the business, to find out illegal money lending, carry out
raids in suspicious cases and do regular inspection as provided in the
Act. The Act serves a larger public interest.
Respondent State in its counter affidavit has stated that the
strength of the staff looking after money lending work has been
considerably and significantly increased in the recent past. The total
receipts from inspection fees and licence fees under the Act are very
meagre in the range of 25 to 30 lakhs every year. Receipts from
inspection fees and licence fees under the Act form a very small part
of the total receipts of the Co-operative Department which are to the
tune of Rs. 21 crores. The licence fees and inspection fee under the
Act are not even sufficient to meet out the expenses incurred on the
staff looking after the money lending business. Since the Act is a
social legislation with the intention to protect the debtors from the
malpractices in the business the State is performing its duties even
though the revenue under the Act is not even sufficient to meet the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9
expenditure on the staff performing duties under the Act. In view of
these submissions it cannot be held that the fees are either arbitrary or
excessive.
Contention raised by Shri G.L. Sanghi, senior counsel for the
appellants that the fees have to be uniform has no merit in view of the
judgment of this Court in Secunderabad Hyderabad Hotel Owners’
Association Vs. Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,
Hyderabad,(supra) and State of Maharashtra Vs. The Salvation
Army, Western India Territory, 1975 (1) SCC 509. It has been held in
these judgments that fees are ordinarily uniform but absence of
uniformity is not the sole criterion on which it can be said that the levy
is in the nature of tax.
Mr. Sanghi has also urged that the impugned fee has been
imposed on the basis of the annual turnover of the money lenders. It
is contended that assuming that the respondent had the authority in
law to levy the fee under challenge, the same could not be levied on
the basis of the annual turnover of the money lenders because such
levy would amount to a tax on turnover. We do not find any force in
this submission as well. This Court in B.S.E. Brokers’ Forum, Bombay
and Others v. Securities and Exchange Board of India and Others,
(supra) held that annual turnover of a broker was not the subject-
matter of the levy but was only a measure of the levy. In this case as
well the annual turnover is not the subject matter of fee but only a
measure of levy.
Relying upon the judgment of this Court in Sreenivasa General
Traders Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1983 (4) SCC 353, it was held
that merely because the fees were taken to the Consolidated Fund of
the State and not separately appropriated towards the expenditure for
rendering the service by itself was not decisive to determine as to
whether it was a fee or a tax. It was also held that fees are ordinarily
uniform but absence of uniformity by itself was not a criterion on
which alone it could be said that the levy was in the nature of tax.
For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this
appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.