Kerala HC: Applications under the Muslim Women’s Divorce Act Have a 3-Year Limitation Period || Supreme Court: Property Transferred Before Filing a Suit Cannot be Attached under Order 38 Rule 5 || Supreme Court: No Review or Appeal is Maintainable Against an Order Appointing an Arbitrator || SC: Terminated Contract is Not a Corporate Debtor’s Asset and a Moratorium Cannot Revive it || SC: Cheque Dishonour Complaints Must be Filed at the Payee’s Home Branch under S.142(2)(A) || Supreme Court: Bail Cannot be Granted Solely on Parity; Accused’s Specific Role Must be Assessed || Kerala HC Upholds Life Terms For Five, Acquits Two in Renjith Johnson Murder, Says TIP Not Needed || Kerala HC Orders Emergency Electric Fencing at Tribal School to Address Rising Wildlife Conflict || Madras HC: Arbitrator Can’t Pierce Corporate Veil to Bind Non-Signatory and Partly Sets Aside Award || Calcutta HC: Post-Award Claim For Municipal Tax Reimbursement is Not Maintainable under Section 9

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 :