SC: Disciplinary Proceedings Cannot Follow if an Officer is Discharged on the Same Charge || SC Clarified the Distinction Between Arbitration “Seat” And “Venue” While Summarising Key Principles || Supreme Court: Wife and Her Family Cannot Be Prosecuted For Dowry-Giving Based On Her Complaint || SC: Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the Ground of Order II Rule 2 Bar || Supreme Court Has Issued an SOP Prescribing Strict Timelines For Filing Legal Aid Appeals || Madras HC: Dhurandhar 2 Release Cannot be Stalled Due to Objections From a Small Section || Delhi HC: Lokpal May Form Prima Facie Opinion Before Show Cause Notice Without Prior Hearing || Bom HC: Family Courts Cannot Casually Order a Spouse’s Medical Examination to Assess Mental Health || Bombay HC: Child Care Leave Protects Motherhood and Denial Violates Rights of Mother and Child || Supreme Court: Amalgamating Company Loss Cannot be Set Off Against Amalgamated Income

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 :