It is illegal to receive opening fees from trade unions
The General Board of the Court of Administrative Justice annulled the regulation of Shahrekord Municipality regarding the receipt of opening fees from trade unions of this city.
According to the public relations report of the Administrative Court of Justice, following the complaint of the Shahrekord Garment Union against the Shahrekord Municipality and the request for the annulment of paragraph two of Part A of the 17th chapter of the tolls approved in 2015 by the Shahrekord Municipality under the title of Inaugural Tolls, the General Board of the Administrative Court of Justice of this resolution that collects the tolls He annulled the opening of trade unions in this city.
In paragraph two of Part A of the 17th chapter of fees approved in 2016 Shahrekord Municipality, it is stated that “the opening fees are calculated and received from the applicant at the time of issuing the acquisition permit. In case of changing job or changing the name of the license (transferring the license) from one person to another, the opening fees can be collected in the name of the new person.
Based on this, the plaintiff claims that the Islamic Council of Shahrekord, with reference to paragraph two of part A of Chapter 17 of the year 2015 taxes, in the form of business and profession taxes, taxes under the title of trade union opening taxes in a lump sum in addition to all business and profession taxes that were imposed at the time Issuing a business license even for trade units that have already received a business license and have paid the relevant fees at the time of obtaining a business license is included in the relevant bills and demands that according to paragraph 26 of article 71 of the Shura Law The approval of the rates of services provided by the municipality and other related organizations in compliance with the financial and transaction regulations of the municipality and part of the duties of the Islamic Council of the city has been announced. But since the municipality does not provide special services that can be charged for the opening of the trade union.
In this regard, the plaintiff has also stated in his defense that the municipalities do not provide direct services in return for the collection of tolls, that they want to receive the same weight of that money, but the whole existence of the municipality is to provide services and from the place of collection of these tolls that are collected from the citizens to Receives services in different ways. In the same way, collecting fees from trades and providers of practical services is one of the sources of funding for the municipality, which does not take any share from the national and state budgets, and all the municipal budget comes from local taxes, and the opening taxes are collected only once and when the license is issued. And it is different from the tolls that Sanof pays annually.
Finally, after discussion and investigation in the General Board of the Court of Administrative Justice and with the approval of the random theory of the Civil, Urban Development and Documents Specialist Board and considering that in paragraph 16 of Article 71 of the Law on Organizations, Duties and Elections of the Islamic Councils of the country and the election of mayors approved in 1375, with the subsequent amendments and the note of Article 50 of the Value Added Tax Law, the imposition of tolls was part of the duties and powers of the Islamic Council of Cities, but the opening tolls are in excess of other legal tolls, and this resolution is contrary to the law and outside the scope of recognition and annulment powers. became.
According to Article 92 of the Law on Organizations and Procedures of the Administrative Court of Justice approved on June 25, 2019, if a resolution is revoked in the General Assembly, it is mandatory to comply with the provisions of the General Assembly’s decision in subsequent resolutions. When the relevant authorities approve a new resolution contrary to the decision of the general board, the president of the court raises the issue in the general board without observing the provisions of Article 83 of this law and only with the invitation of the representative of the approving authority.
This post is written by klm7981