http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  992 of 2003

PETITIONER: Sona Chandi Oal Committee & Ors.

RESPONDENT: State of Maharashtra

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/12/2004

BENCH: ASHOK BHAN & A.K.Mathur

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

BHAN, J.

       This appeal by grant of leave is directed against the judgment  and order of the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur, in Writ  Petition No. 314 of 1993.  The High Court in the impugned judgment  has upheld the validity of provisions of Section 9-A of the Bombay  Money Lenders Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’) as  amended by Maharashtra Act No. 7 of 1992 which, according to the  appellants, who are licensed money lenders, is ultra vires the  provisions of the Constitution of India insofar as it seeks to levy  inspection fee for the renewal of money lender’s licence.  Appellants  therefore seek striking down of Section 9-A of the Act and consequent  thereto the quashing of the demand notice for payment of inspection  fee.

       Under Section 3 of the Act, the State Government has the power  to appoint Registrar General, Registrars and Assistant Registrars for  the purpose of exercising powers and performing duties under the  Act.  Under Section 6 every money lender has to submit an application  in the prescribed form to the Assistant Registrar of the area, within the  limits of which he carries on or intends to carry on his business,  for  the grant of licence to carry on business of money lending every year  on or before such date as may be prescribed by the State Government.   The money lender is required to deposit licence fee [which has been  fixed at Rs. 200/-] as per the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 6  of the Act.  The application so made is required to be processed under  Section 8 of the Act.  Section 9 prescribes the term of licence to be up to  31st July from the date on which the licence is granted.  The licence is  made valid until the application for renewal of licence, if made to the  Registrar within the prescribed time, is disposed of.

       Section 9-A, in respect of levy of inspection fee, was introduced  by Bombay Act No. 50 of 1959 which came into force w.e.f. 26.9.1959.   The first amendment to Section 9-A was made by the Maharashtra Act  No. 76 of 1975 which came into force from 26.7.1976.  Section 9-A was  amended for the second time by Maharashtra Act No. 7 of 1992 which  came into force w.e.f. 28.4.1992.  The amended provisions of Section    9-A, with which we are concerned in this appeal, are as under :-

"9-A.   Levy of inspection fee :-

(1)     An inspection fee shall, in addition to the  licence fee leviable under Section 6, be  levied from a money lender applying for a  renewal of a licence at the rate of one per  cent of the maximum capital utilised by him

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

during the period of the licence sought to be  renewed or rupees five thousand,  whichever is lesser.

(2)     In default of payment of an inspection fee  leviable under sub-section (1), it shall be  recoverable from the defaulter in the same  manner as an arrears of land revenue.

Explanation - For the purposes of this section,  "maximum capital" means the highest total amount  of the capital sum which may remain invested in  the money lending business on any day during the  period of a licence."

       Rule 11 of the Bombay Money Lenders Rules, 1959 (hereinafter  referred to as ’the Rules’) deals with the levy of inspection fees and the  same reads as under :-

"11.    Levy of inspection fee :-

(1)     On receipt of an application for the renewal  of a licence, the Assistant Registrar to whom  the application has been made, shall call  upon the applicant to produce his accounts  for inspection.  He shall then assess the  inspection fee payable under Section 9-A in  respect of inspection of books of accounts  and call upon the applicant to pay the  inspection fee in the manner prescribed in  Rule 10.  The inspection fee shall be paid  within ten days of the receipt of the order in  this behalf by the applicant or within such  further period not exceeding thirty days in  the aggregate of the receipt of the order as  the Registrar may grant in that behalf.

(2)     The Registrar may suo motu or on an  application made in that behalf revise        the order of assessment made under               sub-rule (1) if he thinks fit."

       Inspection fee is payable at the time of renewal of licence and the  charge of inspection fee is @ 1% of the maximum capital utilized by  the money lender during the period of licence sought to be renewed or  Rs. 5,000/- whichever is less.  The term ’maximum capital’ has been  explained in explanation to Section 9-A to mean highest amount of  capital sum which may remain invested in the money lending  business on any day during the period of the licence.  Therefore,  according to the appellants, amount of inspection fee differs from  money lender to money lender and depends upon the utilization of  the maximum capital on any day during the period of licence.

       Money lenders are required to maintain books of accounts under  Section 18 of the Act read with Rule 16 and 17 of the Rules.  Section 18  deals with the duty of the money lender to keep accounts and  maintain cash books and the ledger in such form and in the manner as  may be prescribed as also to furnish copies to debtors as well as  Assistant Registrars.  The section also provides that money lender  upon repayment of loan in full shall  make entries indicating payment

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

or cancellation and discharge every mortgage, restore every pledge,  return every note and cancel or reassign every assignment given by  the debtor as security for loan.  Rules 16 and 17 read as under :-

"Rule 16 ? Forms of cash book, ledger and of  statement and receipt under Section 18 \026 The cash  book and ledger to be maintained by a money  lender under sub-section (1) of Section 18 shall be  either in Form Nos. 4 and 7 respectively or in Form  Nos. 5 and 6 respectively.  The statement under  clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 18 shall be in  Form No. 8.  The receipts under sub-sections (3)  and (4) of Section 18 shall be in Form Nos. 9 and 10  respectively.

Rule 17 ? Capital Account \026 Every money lender  shall open a capital account in Form No. 11 for the  purpose of Section 9-A."

       All these accounts are required to be verified before the grant of  renewal of the licence.   

The State Legislature is competent to make laws for such State or  any part thereof with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List  II of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. Under Entry 30 of  List II the State Legislature can make laws on the subjects of money  lending, money lenders and relief of agricultural indebtedness.  The  same reads:-

"30.    Money lending and money lenders; relief of  agricultural indebtedness."

       Entry 66 which reads: "66. Fees in respect of any of the matters in this List,  but not including fees taken in any court."

authorises the State Legislature to levy fees in respect of any of the  matters enumerated  in List II excluding the fees taken in any court.    Appellants’ case is that under Article 265 of the Constitution there is a  prohibition for imposition or levy or collection of tax by the State,  except by authority of law, and that fee can be imposed only in respect  of the subjects specified in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the  Constitution.  Under the List II, State Legislature is not competent to  levy any tax in respect of subject matters of money lending or money  lenders.  Thus, according to them, the State Legislature is competent to  make laws laying down fees only in respect of items enumerated in  Entry 30 of List II and not the tax.   Though the provisions of Section 9- A are styled as inspection fee, it is in fact the collection of tax by the  State without any authority of law.   According to the appellants, there  is a difference between tax and fee and fees are levied essentially for  the services rendered and as such there is an element of quid pro quo  between the person who pays the fee and the public authority which  imposes it.  Quid pro quo is an essential element in a fee and since there  is no quid pro quo, the levy is in the nature of tax which the State  Government is not competent to impose.   

       Another submission made on behalf of the appellants is that the  work of inspection is required to be done by the respondent authority  to see that the terms of licence granted earlier are observed and the  accounts required are properly maintained as per the provisions of the  Rule.  Therefore, there is no question of co-relation of the amount of  levy with the inspection fee or licence fee to cost of any service.  The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

inspection of books of accounts of money lenders can by no stretch of  imagination be considered service rendered to the money lenders  either for the grant of licence or for renewal of the same.  Levy of  licence fee or inspection fee is, in fact, a tax which the State  Government is not empowered to impose.  It is also alleged by the  appellants that maximum levy of Rs. 5,000/- is arbitrary and violative  of fundamental rights granted under Article 14 of the Constitution  inasmuch as it has no reference whatsoever to any service and no  inspection fee is liable to be imposed or recovered from money lenders  when already Section 6 provides for levy of licence fee.  Appellants  cannot be made to licence fee as well as inspection fee as inspection of  books is for renewal of the licence.  Licence fee would cover the  charges for inspection as well.   Since the levy is credited in the  General Public Funds Account and not appropriated towards any  specific service rendered, goes to show that the levy is in fact in the  nature of a tax.  The levy is arbitrary and disproportionate to the so- called services rendered.   

Another point raised by them is that inspection fee could not be  charged for the period 1.8.1991 to 31.7.1992 as the amendment came  into force w.e.f. 28.4.1992 by which time more than half of the licence  period had already expired.     There was no justification whatsoever to  recover the inspection fee retrospectively w.e.f. 1.8.1991.  The notices  which have been received by the appellants for recovery of inspection  fee for the years 1992-1993 were also put to challenge.

       The respondent-State in its response has pointed out that the Act  was enacted to regulate and control money lending business so as to  eradicate the mal practices in the money lending business and to  protect the interest of debtors.  Thus, according to the respondent, the  purpose of the Act is not limited to providing services to the money  lenders but it is also regulatory in nature for the protection of the  interests of the debtors as well.  The work under the Act is to regulate  and control the money lending business and to protect the debtors  from mal practices in the business by detecting illegal money lending  etc.   Since the fee was regulatory in nature,  quid pro quo for the service  rendered to the person on whom the fee was imposed was not  required to be proved.  Relying upon some judgments of this Court, it  was averred that in case the fee was regulatory in nature there need be  no direct advantage or service rendered to the person on whom the fee  is imposed, a mere casual relation or indirect service may be sufficient.   The special benefit or advantage to the payers of fees may even be  secondary as compared with the primary object of public interest.    That primary object of the Act is to regulate the money lending  business in public interest to protect and improve the economic  conditions of bulk of rural population and poorer sections of  population of towns and cities and to protect them from exploitation.   

       It is further submitted that though the upper limit of Rs. 500/-  has been increased to Rs. 5,000/- by the impugned amendment, the  rate of 1% of maximum capital utilised by the money lender has been  kept the same.   It is stated that there are about 5600 money lenders in  the State of Maharashtra out of which about 2200 money lenders are  from Bombay and Greater Bombay.  Even in Bombay in case of more  than 50% money lenders the maximum capital as defined in the Act is  below Rs. 50,000/-.  The same in case of 20% is between Rs. 1 lac to Rs.  3 lac and for 10% above Rs. 3.00 lac.  In the remaining parts of  Maharshtra about 70 to 75 per cent money lenders are having  maximum capital below Rs. 50,000/-.  Since the fees are to be collected  at the rate of 1 per cent subject to the maximum of Rs. 5,000/- in  majority of the cases there will be no difference in the inspection fee  payable by them. In the case of money lenders who have invested  capital of Rs. 50,000/- there will be no increase in the inspection fee  payable by them.    It is, therefore, submitted that the contention raised

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

by the appellants that the increase was arbitrary or excessive are  devoid of any substance.     

The staff and the officers of the Department have to visit the  places of money lending business, inspect accounts and other matters  relating to business.  According to them, the inspection fee is charged  not for rendering services only but also for regulating and controlling  money lending business.  The increase in the levy is justified on the  ground of heavy increase in the Pay and Allowance of the  Government Servants after 1991 who are employed for regulating and  controlling the activities under the Act.  The respondent has also  pointed out that the strength of the staff looking after the money  lending business has been considerably and significantly increased in  the recent past and receipts from the inspection fee and licence fee are  very meagre in the range of Rs. 25 to 30 lakhs every year which are not  sufficient to meet the expenses incurred for the staff looking after the  money lending business.   

       The High Court came to the conclusion that there was no merit  in the contentions raised by the appellants.  It was held that there was  nexus between the fee charged and the service rendered.  The fee  charged was regulatory in nature to further the objects of the Act so as  to control and supervise the functioning of the money lenders in order  to protect the debtors.  Such an exercise was a must for fulfilling the  purpose of the Act for which infrastructure was required.  Taking note  of the heavy increase in the Pay and Allowances of Establishment and  the receipt from inspection and licence fee, it was observed that the  same were meagre and not even sufficient to meet the expenses  incurred for the staff looking after the money lending business.                  The basic question which we are called upon to decide is  whether the fee of the nature impugned before us is, as a matter of  fact, a tax in the guise of fee and whether it is so excessive or  unreasonable as to loose the character of fee.

       Shri G.L. Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel, placing heavy reliance  on the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Corporation of  Calcutta & Anr.  v.  Liberty Cinema [(1965) 2 SCR 477] in support of  his submission contended that quid pro quo is a must in the case of fee  and in the absence of the same, the levy would be deemed to be a tax.    Since in the present case there is no quid pro quo and no benefit is being  rendered to the person paying the fee, the levy imposed is in the  nature of tax though described as fee. Facts of the case were, under the  Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, a person was required to take a licence  from the Corporation to run a cinema house for public amusement.   Under Section 548(2), for every licence under the Act, a licence fee  could be charged at such rate as fixed from time to time by the  Corporation.  In 1948 the Corporation fixed fees on the basis of the  annual valuation of the cinema halls.  The assessee who was the owner  and licensee of the cinema theatre had been paying licence fee @ Rs.  400/- per year.  In 1958 the Corporation by a resolution changed the  basis of assessment of the fee.  Under the new method the fee was to  be assessed at rates prescribed per show according to the sanctioned  seating capacity of the cinema houses and the assessee had to pay a fee  of Rs. 6,000/- per year.  The assessee filed a petition in the High Court  for the issuance of a writ for quashing the resolution.  The writ petition  was allowed.  The Corporation came up in appeal to this Court, which  was accepted.   The case of the Corporation was that the levy was a tax  and not a fee.  Accepting the plea of the Corporation, it was observed  that in order to make a levy a fee for services rendered, the levy must  confer special benefits to the person on whom it is imposed.  The levy  under Section 548(2) was not a "fee in return for services" as the Act  did not provide for any services of a special kind being rendered,  resulting in benefits to the person on whom it was imposed.  The levy  was held to be a tax.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

       In The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v.  Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt [(1954) SCR  1005] this Court enumerated the different characteristics of tax and fee.   It was held that the tax was levied as a part of common burden while a  fee was a payment for special benefits or privilege to the person  paying the same.  Though it was not possible to formulate a definition  of fee that could apply to all cases as there were different kinds of fee,  but a fee may generally be defined as a charge for special service  rendered to individuals by some governmental agency.  It was  observed that amount of fee levied is supposed to be based on the  expenses incurred by the Government in rendering the service.   Pointing out the distinction between a tax and fee, it was observed that  tax is a compulsory exaction of money by a public authority for public  purposes enforceable by law and is not payment for services rendered.   

       In Chief Commissioner, Delhi v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills  Co. Ltd. [(1978) 2 SCC 367], it was held by this Court that levy of fee  should be in consideration of certain services which the individuals  accept either willingly or unwillingly and that the collection from such  levy should not be set apart or merged with the general revenue of the  State to be spent for general public purpose but should be  appropriated for the specific purpose for which the levy is being  made.

       In Om Parkash Agarwal v. Giri Raj Kishori [(1986) 1 SCC 722] it  was held that levy imposed could not be treated as a fee and was tax  primarily because the collection so made was being utilised not for  fulfilling the objects of the Act under which the collection is  authorised, but for the general requirement of the State’s functions.

       Shri Sanghi also placed reliance on a recent judgment of this  Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow, U.P. v. Chhata  Sugar Co. Ltd. [(2004) 3 SCC 466] wherein the question was whether  administrative charges collected by the sugar factory for molasses sold  from the buyers/allottees on behalf of the State Government in terms  of Section 8(5) of the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964  constituted a duty or impost in the nature of a tax and consequently,  not includible in the value as defined in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of  the Central Excise Act, 1944.  The Court, after analysing the provisions  of the Act, held that sugar factory was merely a collecting agent of  administrative charges for the State Government.  The administrative  charges were not a component of a consideration received by the  sugar factory and did not form part of the revenue of the sugar  factory.  The administrative charges could not be appropriated to the  revenue account of the sugar factory and, therefore, there was no  element of quid pro quo as far as the administrative charges in the  hands of the sugar factory are concerned.  The administrative charges  were thus held to be a tax and not a fee.

       A three Judge Bench of this Court in B.S.E. Brokers’ Forum,  Bombay and Others v. Securities and Exchange Board of India and  Others [(2001) 3 SCC 482], after considering a large number of  authorities, has held that much ice has melted in Himalayas after the  rendering of the earlier judgments as there was a sea change in the  judicial thinking as to the difference between a tax and a fee since  then.  Placing reliance on the following judgments of this Court in the  last 20 years, namely, Sreenivasa General Traders Vs. State of  Andhra Pradesh, (supra);  City Corporation of Calicut Vs.  Thachambalath Sadasivan, (1985) 2 SCC 112; Sirsilk Ltd. Vs. Textiles  Committee,  (1989) Supp. 1 SCC 168; Commissioner & Secretary to  Government Commercial Taxes & Religious Endowments  Department Vs. Sree Murugan Financing Corporation Coimbatore,  (1992) 3 SCC 488; Secretary to Government of Madras Vs.  P.R.Sriramulu, (1996) 1 SCC 345; Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. Vs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

State of U.P.,  (1997) 2 SCC 715; Research Foundation for Science,  Technology & Ecology Vs. Ministry of Agriculture, (1999) 1 SCC 655  and Secunderabad Hyderabad Hotel Owners’ Association Vs.  Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, (1999) 2 SCC 274, it  was held that the traditional concept of quid pro quo in a fee has  undergone considerable transformation.  So far as the regulatory fee is  concerned, the service to be rendered is not a condition precedent and  the same does not loose the character of a fee provided the fee so  charged is not excessive.  It was not necessary that service to be  rendered by the collecting authority should be confined to the  contributories alone.  The levy does not cease to be a fee merely  because there is an element of compulsion or coerciveness present in  it, nor is it a postulate of a fee that it must have a direct relation to the  actual service rendered by the authority to each individual who  obtains the benefit of the service.  The quid pro quo in the strict sence  was not always a sine qua non for a fee.  All that is necessary is that  there should be a reasonable relationship between the levy of fee and  the services rendered.  It was observed that it was not necessary to  establish that those who pay the fee must receive direct or special  benefit or advantage of the services rendered for which the fee was  being paid.  It was held that if one who is liable to pay, receives  general benefit from the authority levying the fee, the element of  service required for collecting fee is satisfied.   

We need not refer to the law laid down by this Court in each of  the judgments which have been cited as the same have been analysed  and discussed at length by this Court in B.S.E. Brokers’ Forum,  Bombay and Others case (supra).

       The Bombay Money-Lenders Act, 1946 was enacted during pre- independence period by the elected Government to control and  regulate money lending.  Money lenders were fleecing the poor  peasants, tenants, agricultural labourers and salaried workers who  were unable to repay loans.  The agricultural debtors were loosing  their lands, crops or other securities to the money lenders.  To arrest  this exploitation, the Money-Lenders Act was enacted to improve the  economic conditions of the bulk of the rural population and the poorer  sections of the population in towns and cities.  Under the Act it was  made mandatory first to take a licence to do the business of money  lending on payment of a licence fee of Rs. 200/-.   Inspection fee is  levied for renewal of licence and for that purpose it is necessary that  the records maintained by the money lenders should be thoroughly  examined in order to satisfy whether all the registers are maintained  properly in accordance with the rules and it is only after the satisfying  that no irregularities are committed, the money lender becomes  entitled to get the renewal of his licence.  ’Inspection fee’ has been  defined in Section 2(5-A) of the Bombay Money-Lenders Act, 1946 to  mean the fee leviable under Section 9A in respect of inspection of  books of account of a money-lender.  Section 2(7) defines the ’licence’  to mean licence granted under this Act and according to Section 2(8)  ’licence fee’ means fee payable in respect of a licence.  Renewal of  licence is not automatic and can be refused on the grounds specified in  Section 8.  In order to ensure that the money lenders comply with the  provisions of the Act and the Rules on which renewal of the licence  can be refused under clauses (b) and (c) of Section 8, inspection of the  records maintained by the money lenders is absolutely necessary and  must.  Rule 11 provides that on receipt of any application for renewal  of a licence, the Assistant Registrar, to whom the application has been  made, shall call upon the applicant to produce his accounts for  inspection.  He shall then assess the inspection fee payable under  Section 9A in respect of inspection of books of accounts and call upon  the applicant to pay the inspection fee in the manner prescribed in  Rule 10.  Under Section 18, every money lender is required to keep  and maintain a cash book and a ledger in such form and in such  manner as may be prescribed.  Under sub-section (2) every money

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

lender has to deliver or cause to be delivered to the debtor within 30  days from the date on which a loan is made, a statement in any  recognised language saying in clear and distinct terms the amount and  date of loan and its maturity, the nature of the security, if any, for the  loan, the name and address of the debtor and of the money lender and  the rate of interest charged.  Clause (b) of this sub-section provides  that upon repayment of loan in full, the money lender is required to  mark indelibly every paper signed by the debtor with words  indicating payment or cancellation and discharge every mortgage,  restore every pledge, return every note and cancel or reassign every  assignment given by the debtor as security for the loan.  Sub-section  (3) provides that no money lender shall receive any payment from a  debtor on account of any loan without giving him a plain and  complete receipt for the payment.  Money lender under sub-section (4)  is debarred from accepting from a debtor any article as a pawn, pledge  or security for a loan without giving him a plain signed receipt for the  same with its description, estimated value, the amount of loan  advanced against it and such other particulars as may be prescribed.   Under Section 19, every money lender is required to deliver or cause  to be delivered in every year to each of his debtors a legible statement  of such debtor’s accounts signed by the money lender or his agent of  any amount that may be outstanding against such debtor. Rule 16  provides for the forms of cash book, ledger and of statement and  receipt under Section 18.  Rule 17 provides for opening of a capital  account in Form 11 for the purposes of Section 9A.  The inspection of  records, thus by itself, provides for service rendered by the State to the  money lenders which is done in connection with their request to  renew the licences.  It is necessary to find out before granting renewal  of the licence that the applicant has complied with the provisions of  the Act and the Rules and that he has not made any wilful default in  complying with or knowingly acted in contravention of any  requirements of the Act.

       This is the direct service rendered to the money lenders as the  renewal of licence depends upon the inspection of their accounts  which is required to be carried out under the Act.

       This apart the fee charged is regulatory in nature to control and  supervise the functioning of the money lending business to protect the  debtors the vast majority of which are poor peasants, tenants,  agricultural labourers and salaried workers who are unable to repay  their loans.  The object of the Act is to control the money lending  business and protect the debtors from the malpractices in the business  by detecting illegal money lending.  This exercise is a must to carry out  the object of the Act for which lot of infrastructure is required.    The  duty of the staff and the officers of the Department is to visit the places  of money lending business, inspect the accounts and other matters  relating to the business, to find out illegal money lending, carry out  raids in suspicious cases and do regular inspection as provided in the  Act.  The Act serves a larger public interest.   

       Respondent State in its counter affidavit has stated that the  strength of the staff looking after money lending work has been  considerably and significantly increased in the recent past.  The total  receipts from inspection fees and licence fees under the Act are very  meagre in the range of 25 to 30 lakhs every year.   Receipts from  inspection fees and licence fees under the Act  form a very small part  of the total receipts of the Co-operative Department which are to the  tune of Rs. 21 crores.   The licence fees and inspection fee under the  Act are not even sufficient to meet out the expenses incurred on the  staff looking after the money lending business.  Since the Act is a  social legislation with the intention to protect the debtors from the  malpractices in the business the State is performing its duties even  though the revenue under the Act is not even sufficient to meet the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

expenditure on the staff performing duties under the Act.  In view of  these submissions it cannot be held that the fees are either arbitrary or  excessive.  

       Contention raised by Shri G.L. Sanghi, senior counsel for the  appellants that the fees have to be uniform has no merit in view of the  judgment of this Court in Secunderabad Hyderabad Hotel Owners’  Association Vs. Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,  Hyderabad,(supra) and State of Maharashtra Vs. The Salvation  Army, Western India Territory, 1975 (1) SCC 509.  It has been held in  these judgments that fees are ordinarily uniform but absence of  uniformity is not the sole criterion on which it can be said that the levy  is in the nature of tax.   

Mr. Sanghi has also urged that the impugned fee has been  imposed on the basis of the annual turnover of the money lenders.  It  is contended that assuming that the respondent had the authority in  law to  levy the fee under challenge, the same could not be levied on  the basis of the annual turnover of the money lenders because such  levy would amount to a tax on turnover.  We do not find any force in  this submission as well.  This Court in B.S.E. Brokers’ Forum, Bombay  and Others v. Securities and Exchange Board of India and Others,  (supra) held that annual turnover of a broker was not the subject- matter of the levy but was only a measure of the levy.    In this case as  well the annual turnover is not the subject matter of fee but only a  measure of levy.

Relying upon the judgment of this Court in Sreenivasa General  Traders Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1983 (4) SCC 353, it was held  that merely because the fees were taken to the Consolidated Fund of  the State and not separately appropriated towards the expenditure for  rendering the service  by itself was not decisive  to determine as to  whether it was a fee or a tax.   It was also held that fees are ordinarily  uniform but absence of uniformity by itself was not a criterion on  which alone it could be said that the levy was in the nature of tax.

       For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this  appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.