“Mr. R. Mohanty, the learned counsel for some of the petitioners submitted that the power of the Board under section 90(7) of the Act is to levy fees simpliciter. He cited the case reported in (1978) 34 Cut LT 122 (SC), Laxmidhar Sahu v. Supdt. Of Excise Berhampur in support of the contention. Reading the entire judgment, the contention as raised by Mr. Mohanty, is not spelt out. A Decision is an authority only for what it actually decided and not for what may logically follow from it. Every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular factors proved, or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions, which may be found there, are not intended to be expositions of the whole law but governed or qualified by particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. See (1983) 4 SCC 353 : AIR 1983 SC 1246., Sreenivasa General Traders etc v. State of Andhra Pradesh . The case of Laxmikanta Sahu (supra) was considered by the Supreme Court in (1975) 1 SCC 737 : AIR 1975 SC 1121 : 1975 Tax LR 1569, Harsankar v. Dy. Excise and Taxation Company . In para 61 at page 1134 it has been observed that in that case it was expressly contended on behalf of the State of Orissa that the levy was a tax and not a fee. The decision being based on a concession did not involve the determination of the point whether the fee levied under section 90(7) of the Act is a fee simpliciter.”
