Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R.DEVDAS
Sapthagiri Shelters – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legality of bbmp's fees under new amendments. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments against amendments and implications of prior rulings. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. counterarguments related to legality of fees. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. challenges regarding specific fee structures. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. issues surrounding fee legality and improper collection. (Para 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. arguments against doubled taxation and applicability. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 7. constitutional limits on legislative amendments. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 8. examination of legal principles and precedents. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 9. presumption of constitutionality and legal challenges. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 10. judicial review on amendments and fiscal legitimacy. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 11. the lack of nexus between fee rates and market values. (Para 53 , 54 , 55) |
| 12. implications of fee structures under planning acts. (Para 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 13. court's decision and provisions quashed. (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65) |
| 14. final order and recommendations regarding fee structure. (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70) |
ORDER :
R. DEVDAS, J.
As a f
Amendments to municipal fee structures were quashed for failing to rectify judicially identified legal flaws, emphasizing the principle of quid pro quo in administrative fees.
The Court declared the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Amendment Act, 2021 and related demands unconstitutional, emphasizing the illegality of fee linkage to market value and ensuring no double char....
The court quashed the unconstitutional amendments, declaring prior fees as sufficient for development plans, prohibiting additional charges linked to market value.
Taxes not to be imposed save by authority of law - Article 265 of Constitution is the source of power for the Union and States to impose taxes in accordance with law. Article 265 of the Constitution ....
The imposition of a fee for buildings exceeding 3000 square feet under Rule 12(9) is ultra vires the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, as it exceeds the authority granted by th....
The imposition of a fee for building construction exceeding 3000 sq. ft. under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules is ultra vires the Act, violating constitutional provisions and ....
The court established that the imposition of delay fees by circular without statutory authority contradicts the principles of law, rendering such fees arbitrary and illegal.
It is now well settled that the expression “fee” is also comprehended in the expression “tax” for the purpose of Article 265 and even for the collection of a “fee”, authority of law (i.e. legislative....
Sub-section (2) of section 479 upheld; Commissioner’s power to fix advertisement license fees with Corporation sanction not excessive delegation, as guidelines exist in statute, policy, and democrati....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
