Second Appeal is Not a Forum for Rehearing or Reassessment of Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Partition Suit Appeal Failure of Justice Must Be Proved, Not Assumed: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Charge Framing Lapse Bail is the Rule, Refusal is an Exception – Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Ivory Coast National in NDPS Case Courts Must Adopt a Justice-Oriented Approach in Matrimonial Cases: Gauhati High Court Condones Delay in Family Court Appeal FIR Quashing | Breath Analyzer Test Alone Cannot Prove Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Under Bihar Prohibition Law Unregistered Writing Cannot Confer Ownership: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute Allegations of Stalking and Criminal Intimidation Must Be Tested at Trial: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Nestlé Officials Over Maggi Noodles Controversy No Shortcuts in NDPS Investigations – J&K High Court Rebukes Casual Approach of Investigating Officers Sessions Court Cannot Order Re-Investigation: Allahabad High Court Quashes Direction Against Jaypee Hospital If Official Witnesses Are Reliable, Independent Corroboration Is Not a Must:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NDPS Conviction No Service Tax Can Be Levied on Sale of Lottery Tickets: Supreme Court Rules That Lottery Distributors Are Not Agents Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators When Justice Is Denied Due to Procedural Errors:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Recall of Bail Rejection Order Section 27 of the Evidence Act Requires Independent Corroboration—Mere Claims by Police Are Not Enough: Supreme Court on Flawed Investigation Confession to Police Is No Confession in Law: Supreme Court Acquits Man, Citing Inadmissibility of Statements Made in Custody Mere 'Last Seen Together' Is Not Enough for Conviction Unless It Forms a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside Life Sentence in 16-Year-Old Girl’s Murder Failure to Explain Wife’s Death Strengthens Guilt Under Section 106 of Evidence Act" – Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case Child Witness Testimony Cannot Be Discarded Solely on Grounds of Tutoring: Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder 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

Similar News