P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court || Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long || Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo || Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision || Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act || Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself || Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession || SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings || SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order || NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions

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 :