Fee
Fee legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Simultaneity or contemporaneity of payment and benefit was not the most vital or crucial test to determine whether a levy was a Fee or not, especially in long-term projects
While "service to be rendered" or quid pro quo in future was permissible it was equally important that the prospects of such a future service were certain, as if tied in time, with the payment of Fee
For the Fee to have a constitutional existence, the service to be rendered in return or the quid pro quo must be certain, clear, unambiguous and within a definite time
Payment of Fee by the payer could not be towards a service that floated in a timeless zone; was open-ended and uncertain
Failure in providing future service within reasonable timeline, deprived the Fee of its essential character, and gave it the complexion of a tax.
Basic difference between an enactment where fee simplicitor was imposed and where Cess-fee was imposed was that in the former a service or a privilege was made available to the payer directly on the strict principle of quid pro quo whereas in the latter case, the declared purpose came with a promise to bring some benefit or advantage in future which was basically meant for its payers
In order to remain as a fee-levying enactment, the purpose for which the Cess was to be charged should be well spelled out and defined in the enactments as narrowly as possible lest it may convert it into a tax-levying enactment
Proceeds of Cess should be clearly identifiable in the accounts by using separate accounting codes so that its collection and utilization was reconcilable with the purposes stated in the enactment.
Payment/contribution would qualify as a fee if it was for specific purpose and possessed the element of quid pro quo.
S. 66 (1)-Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1946, rr. 7, 35, Form R (T), Note-Reference-Application-Limitation-Fees-Whether should be paid within time.
-Fee-Mere omission to refund In case client does not wish Advocate to perform work-Not always professional misconduct-Advocate not always bound to refund
"Fee", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/13971
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Fee"
P L D 2016 Lahore 355
Messrs D.S. TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents
Court: (a) Punjab Local Government Ordinance (XIII of 2001) since repealed---PLD 1992 KARACHI 427
TREET CORPORATION LIMITED PETITIONER Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through its secretary Ministry of industries , Islamabad and 2 others. — Respondent
Court:P L D 2017 Islamabad 177
DV COM DATA — Appellant Versus PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION AUTHORITY through Chairman and another — Respondents
Court: High CourtP L D 1996 Lahore 436
NAQASH AHMED and another ‑‑‑ Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF and another ‑‑‑ Respondents
Court:P L D 2006 Karachi 648
Messrs PIONEER TRADERS — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH and others — Respondents
Court: High CourtP L D 2017 Lahore 563
TRADE SERVE INTERNATIONAL (PRIVATE) LIMITED and others — Petitioners Versus PAKISTAN ELECTRONIC MEDIA REGULATORY AUTHORITY and others — Respondents
Court: High Court1988 C L C 1645
HAMEEDA BEGUM‑‑Petitioner Versus FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and another‑‑Respondents
Court: Karachi1994 C L C 1961
ALLAH RAKHA and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD BOOTA and another‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Lahore1987 C L C 1280
Court: Karachi
1983 C L C 2594
MAQSOOD AHMAD KHAN-Applicant . Versus D. B. AVARI AND 3 arms-Respondents
Court: Karachi