Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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