Mere Allegations of Harassment Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Wife in Matrimonial Suicide Case 'Convenience Of Wife Not A Thumb Rule, But Custody Of Minor Child Is A Weighing Aspect': Punjab & Haryana HC Transfers Divorce Case To Rohtak MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Cooperative Society Is A “Veritable Party” To Arbitration Clause In Flat Agreements, Temple Trust Entitled To Arbitrate As Non-Signatory: Bombay High Court State Government Cannot Review Its Own Revisional Orders Under Section 41(3): Allahabad High Court Affirms Legal Bar on Successive Reviews When Several Issues Arise, Courts Must Answer Each With Reasons: Supreme Court Automatic Retention Trumps Lessee Tag: Calcutta High Court Declares Saregama India ‘Raiyat’, Directs Reconsideration of Land Conversion Application Recovery of Valid Ticket Raises Presumption of Bona Fide Travel – Burden Shifts to Railways: Delhi High Court Restores Railway Accident Claim Failure to Frame Issue on Limitation Vitiates Award of Compensation Under Telegraph Act: Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Order, Remands Matter Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Heritable Right: Gujarat High Court Rejects 9-Year Delayed Claim, Orders Re-Issuance of ₹4 Lakh Compensation Court Cannot Rewrite Contracts to Suit Contractor’s Convenience: Kerala High Court Upholds Termination of Road Work Under Risk and Cost Clause Post-Bail Conduct Is Irrelevant in Appeal Against Grant of Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Crucial Distinction Between Appeal and Cancellation Granting Anticipatory Bail to a Long-Absconding Accused Makes a Mockery of the Judicial Process: Supreme Court Cracks Down on Pre-Arrest Bail in Murder Case Recognition as an Intangible Asset Does Not Confer Ownership: Supreme Court Draws a Sharp Line Between Accounting Entries and Property Rights IBC Cannot Be the Guiding Principle for Restructuring the Ownership and Control of Spectrum: Supreme Court Reasserts Public Trust Over Natural Resources Courts Cannot Convict First and Search for Law Later: Supreme Court Faults Prosecution for Ignoring Statutory Foundation in Cement Case When the Law Itself Stood Withdrawn, How Could Its Violation Survive?: Supreme Court Quashes 1994 Cement Conviction Under E.C. Act Ten Years Means Ten Years – Not a Day Less: Supreme Court Refuses to Dilute Statutory Experience Requirement for SET Exemption SET in Malayalam Cannot Qualify You to Teach Economics: Supreme Court Upholds Subject-Specific Eligibility for HSST Appointments Outsourcing Cannot Become A Tool To Defeat Regularization: Supreme Court On Perennial Nature Of Government Work Once Similarly Placed Workers Were Regularized, Denial to Others Is Discrimination: Supreme Court Directs Regularization of Income Tax Daily-Wage Workers Right To Form Association Is Protected — But Not A Right To Run It Free From Regulation: Supreme Court Recalibrates Article 19 In Sports Governance S. Nithya Cannot Be Transplanted Into Cricket: Supreme Court Shields District Cricket Bodies From Judicially Imposed Structural Overhaul Will | Propounder Must Dispel Every Suspicious Circumstance — Failure Is Fatal: : Punjab & Haryana High Court Electronic Evidence Authenticity Jeopardized by Unexplained Delay and Procedural Omissions: MP High Court Rejects Belated 65B Application Not Answering to the Questions of the IO Would Not Ipso Facto Mean There Is Non-Cooperation: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Undertaking to Satisfy Award Is Not Waiver of Appeal: Supreme Court Restores Insurer’s Statutory Right

Supreme Court Holds Development Fees Collected by Airports Authority of India as Statutory Levy, Not Fees or Tariffs

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has clarified the nature of development fees collected by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) under Section 22A of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994. The bench comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta held that the development fees are statutory exactions and not fees or tariffs, settling a long-standing debate on their categorization.

The court observed that there is a clear distinction between the charges, fees, and rent collected under Section 22 of the AAI Act and the development fees levied and collected under Section 22A. The fees collected under Section 22 are considered for services and facilities provided by the Airports Authority to airlines, passengers, visitors, and traders. On the other hand, the development fees collected under Section 22A are in the nature of a cess or tax for generating revenue for specific purposes mentioned in the Act.

The judgment, referring to the landmark case of Consumer Online Foundation (Supra), emphasized that the development fees levied and collected under Section 22A are not charges or consideration for services provided by the Airports Authority. The court highlighted that there is no contractual relationship between passengers and the AAI regarding the upgradation, expansion, or development of the airport, which is funded or financed by development fees.

The court further noted that the development fees collected are deposited in an escrow account and their utilization is regulated by law. Although the funds are not deposited in the government treasury, their utilization is closely monitored by the AAI. The court held that the absence of compulsion to levy or deposit fees in the government treasury does not diminish their statutory nature. The development fees collected are intended for the public interest and aimed at ensuring efficient funding and completion of airport development projects.

The court also considered the circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) in 2006, which clarified that fees collected by public authorities for performing statutory functions under the provisions of a law are not subject to service tax. It further noted the ruling in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Supra), where the court held that discretionary fees collected by market committees for leasing or renting shops or spaces to traders are not statutory levies.

Supreme Court concluded that the development fees collected by the AAI under Section 22A of the AAI Act are statutory levies. The court upheld the impugned orders, ruling in favor of the revenue authorities. The decision provides clarity on the nature and treatment of development fees collected by the AAI and sets a precedent for future cases in this context.

Date of Decision: May 19, 2023

CENTRAL GST DELHI - III  vs DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD

Latest Legal News