SC: Section 22 of Hindu Succession Act Preference For Class-I Heirs Applies to Agricultural Land || Supreme Court: Refund Clause in Sale Agreement Does Not Extinguish Right to Specific Performance || SC Clarifies When a Probate Application Filed After a Testator's Death is Time-Barred || Madras HC: Coordinate Bench Cannot Reopen Issue Already Settled by Another Division Bench || Delhi HC Urges Law to Regulate Media, Notes Anyone with a Mobile Phone Can Claim to be a Journalist || CCI Rejects Allegations of Collusion Involving Reliance Jio and More Than 4,500 Entities || Allahabad HC: Working Mother with Child Custody Cannot Shift Entire Maintenance Liability to Father || Bombay HC: Possessory Suit U/S 6 of the SRA is Maintainable Despite a Licensor-Licensee Relationship || Del HC: Master's Candidates Without the Prescribed Bachelor's Degree are Ineligible as Govt Teacher || Cal HC: BSF Cannot Deny DIG Rank to an Officer Injured in 1995 Road Accident After Earlier Promotion

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 :