Levy/fee
Levy/fee legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
For a levy to be a fee, relation between the purpose and the persons on whom the levy is being exacted has to be established
Levy is a common burden and a compulsory exaction of money for raising revenue and expending it for the purpose of public revenue of the State.
"Levy/fee", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124958617
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Levy/fee"
2025 Y L R 266
M/s R-SC Internet Services Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. through Assistant Manager and another — Petitioners Versus Federation of pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and others — Respondents
Court: Peshawar2007 C L C 587
SHABBIR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus T.M.A. and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore2008 Y L R 1889
SHABBIR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus TEHSIL MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, RAHIMYAR KHAN through Nazim and 3 others — Respondents
Court: Lahore2000 C L C 1062
Messrs ELEGANT FOOTWEAR (PVT.) LTD. ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OE PUNJAB,
Court: Lahore1996 C L C 1042
LIMITED, KARACHI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary
Court: Karachi2022 M L D 1938
QURESHI TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED through Assistant Manager — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT COUNCIL, CHAK SHAHANA ROAD, KHANEWAL through Chairman and another — Respondents
Court: Lahore (Multan Bench)P L D 2021 Lahore 108
The BANK OF KHYBER through Authorized Attorneys — Petitioner Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GUJRAT through Mayor Nasir Mehmood and 2 others — Respondents
Court: High Court2021 C L D 340
The BANK OF KHYBER through Authorized Attorneys — Petitioner Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GUJRAT through Mayor Nasir Mehmood and 2 others — Respondents
Court: LahoreP L D 1998 Peshawar 15
Messrs SAIF TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN through Secretary, Finance
Court: ‑‑‑‑S. 15‑‑‑Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Preamble‑‑‑Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance (XI of 1972), S.4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.70(4) & Fourth Sched., Entries Nos.16 & 17‑‑‑Vires of Finance Act, 1992‑‑‑Section 15, Finance Act, 1992 whereby Federal Government was empowered to levy fee for education on specified companies was challenged to be ultra vires of Fourth Sched. to Art.70(4) of the Constitution‑‑‑Federal or Concurrent Legislative Lists indicated that subject of education was not included therein‑‑‑Though Serial No.16 of Federal Legislative List describes, "Federal Agencies and Institutes for research, for professional or technical training, or for promotion of special studies"; and entry at Serial No.17 adds, "Education as respects Pakistan students in foreign countries and foreign students in Pakistan", yet such entries had no nexus with subject of education covered by impugned fee‑‑‑Education being Provincial matter, Federal Government could frame no legislation thereabout, for it did not fall either under Federal Legislative List or Concurrent Legislative List‑‑‑Any law made by Legislature conflicting, with the provisions of the Constitution was void, for law‑making power was always subject to the provisions of the Constitution‑‑‑Impugned impost made by Federal Government beyond the legislative powers specified by the Constitution could rightly be declared as ultra vires the Constitution‑‑‑Nothing was found in impugned provision of law to show that fee was levied for some special services rendered or to be rendered to petitioners (Companies)‑‑‑Petitioners were already paying education fee at specified rate per worker per annum to Provincial Government under Workers' Children (Education) Act, 1972‑--For creating any liability, there should be a parent law in that field‑‑‑No parent law was in existence for charging education fee‑‑‑Fixation of fee in question, through rules, was, thus, violative of the Constitution‑‑‑Provision of S.15, Finance Act, 1992, was, therefore, declared to be unlawful, without jurisdiction and repugnant to the provisions of the Constitution. ‑‑Vires of legislation.2004 Y L R 366
Messrs SHAMIM & CO. ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus TEHSIL MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, MULTAN CITY through Nazim and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: High Court