Karnataka HC: A Neighbour Cannot be Charged With Matrimonial Cruelty under Section 498A IPC || Revisional Power U/S 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act is Supervisory; HC Cannot Revisit Facts || Poverty Cannot Bar Parole; Rajasthan HC Waives Surety For Indigent Life Convict, Sets Guidelines || Delhi High Court: Late Payment of TDS Does Not Absolve Criminal Liability under the Income Tax Act || NCLT Kochi: Avoidance Provisions under Insolvency Code Aim to Restore, Not Punish, Parties || Bombay High Court: In IBC Cases, High Courts Lack Parallel Contempt Jurisdiction over the NCLT || Supreme Court: Concluded Auction Cannot Be Cancelled Merely To Invite Higher Bids at a Later Stage || SC: In Customs Classification, Statutory Tariff Headings and HSN Notes Prevail over Common Parlance || SC: Under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, Notice U/S 10(5) Must be Served on the Person in Possession || Supreme Court: Only Courts May Condone Delay; Tribunals Lack Power Unless Statute Allows

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 :