Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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