Supreme Court: GPF Nomination in Favour of a Parent Becomes Invalid Once the Employee Marries || Supreme Court: Candidate Not Disqualified if Core Subject Studied Without Exact Degree Title || Supreme Court: Stamp Duty Relief for Co-Operative Societies Cannot Depend on Extra-Legal Verification || Delhi High Court: Allegations of Forgery Alone Do not Bar NCLT From Examining Company Records || J&K&L HC: Only Revenue Authorities Can Handle Agrarian Resumption; Civil Courts Cannot Intervene || Delhi HC: CAPF Candidate's Height of 164.6 Cm Can be Rounded to 165 Cm; Rejection Prima Facie Illegal || NCLT Mumbai: Bank Cannot Retain OTS Earnest Money After Accepting a Resolution Plan || Supreme Court: Imminent Death Not Required For a Statement to Qualify as Dying Declaration || SC: HC Cannot Grant Pre-Arrest Bail Without Quashing FIR; Accused Must Approach Sessions Court First || SC: Agreed Interest Rate Cannot Be Challenged as Exorbitant; Arbitrator Cannot Override Contract

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 :