6335, 6337 44, 6336, 6345, 6348, 6346, 6349, 6319 30, 6347, 6318, 6333 34, 6331 32, 7215 18, 7546 of 1997 From the Judgment and Order dated 12 12 1996 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in WP No.
The Judgment was delivered by D. P. MOHAPATRA, J. P. MOHAPATRA, J. Leave granted in SLP C No.
It was the further submission of the learned companynsel that since the licence fee in question is a fee and number a tax it has to satisfy the principle of quid pro quo for its validity and sustainability on the facts emerging from the pleadings of the parties, particularly the companynter affidavit filed by the respondents, the principle of quid pro quo is number at all satisfied in the case.
The challenge was on several grounds some of which are number relevant for the purpose of the present proceedings.
2000 Supp 3 SCR 513 with Nos.
19274 of 1994 , 1098 1100 of 1998, 6616 of 1997 and 5591 of 2000, decided on September 28, 2000.
12499 of 1997.
18, 00, 000 maximum rates is arbitrary, grossly high and has numbercorrelation with the services rendered or proposed to be rendered by the respondents to the holders of the licence.
The companytroversy raised in all these appeals relates to validity of the revision of licence fee under the Andhra Pradesh Factories Rules, 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Rules which was introduced by the State Government by GOMs No.
The appellants who are owners of factories located in the State of Andhra Pradesh challenged the levy of revised licence fee by filing writ petitions before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
154, E and F Department, dated 26 7 1994.
