Supreme Court Directs Preventive Detention to Curb Illegal Mining in Chambal Sanctuary || SC: Courts Must Frame Points For Determination and Give Reasoned Judgments in Ex Parte Cases || Supreme Court: Clause Saying ‘Can Be Settled By Arbitration’ Does Not Mandate Arbitration || SC: Employees Appointed Without Advertisement or Interview Cannot be Regularised || Delhi HC: Non-Disclosure of Conflict By Andre Yeap Vitiates Arbitral Award in MSA Global Dispute || Punjab & Haryana High Court: Arrest Memo Alone Not Final Proof of Arrest Time || Rajasthan HC: Govt Department Cannot Terminate Outsourced Employee, Only Recommend Action || Raj HC: HRA and Allowances Part of Deceased's Income for Motor Accident Compensation Calculation || J&K& Ladakh HC: Executing Court Cannot Issue Levy Warrants While S.47 CPC Challenge is Pending || J&K &L HC: Husband’s Girlfriend Not ‘Relative’ Under Sec 498A IPC, Cannot Be Prosecuted for Cruelty

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 :