SC: Appeal U/S 374 CrPC/415 BNSS is Not Maintainable Against Sessions Court's Reversal of Acquittal || SC Asked the Centre to Promote Awareness About the Consequences of Driving With an Expired Licence || SC Explains How a Deceased Christian Wife's Property Devolves under the Indian Succession Act || Supreme Court: Reach Stacker isn't a Motor Vehicle; MACT Claim Not Maintainable || Supreme Court: Lift Makers, Operators and Owners Share Responsibility for User Safety || Patna HC: Pressure to Sign Divorce and Child Custody does not Amount to Cruelty || Bombay HC: Externment under the Police Act Requires Satisfaction About a Gang's Activities || Bombay HC: False Travel Distance Claim Alone Doesn't Constitute Misappropriation || J&K&L High Court: Interest on Delayed Gratuity is Not a Mandatory Pre-Deposit For an Appeal || Meghalaya HC: Meritorious Candidate Cannot Be Denied Admission For a Two-Minute Delay

Kalyan Chemicals v. Government of A.P. and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (12 Aug 2015)

Larger amount of fee not excessive given passage of time

MANU/SC/0854/2015

Excise

The Supreme Court rejected the claim that collection of a gallonage fee by state at the rate of Re.1 per bulk litre was illegal, arbitrary and without justification in the non-rendering of any service. It added, the state had the authority to impose the fee retrospectively, and in its determination found Re.1 per bulk litre to be reasonable and not excessive.

Relevant : Synthetics and Chemicals Limited v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0595/1989 Vam Organics Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/1076/1997

Tags : EXCISE FEE EXCESSIVE PASSAGE OF TIME

Share :