Supreme Court: Borrowers Retain Redemption Rights if Balance is Paid After Auction Deadline || Supreme Court: Non-Confirmation of Seizure under Section 37A Impacts Adjudication Proceedings || SC: Blacklisting After Contract Termination is Not Automatic and Needs Independent Review || Grand Venice Fraud Case: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Satinder Singh Bhasin || SC: Senior Employee Cannot Claim Same Lesser Penalty As Subordinate; Bank Manager's Dismissal Upheld || Madras HC: Governor Must Follow Cabinet's Advice on Remission Decisions, Regardless of Personal View || Kerala High Court: Entrepreneurs Must Be Protected From Baseless Protests to Boost Industrial Growth || J&K&L High Court: Second FIR Valid if it Reveals a Broader Conspiracy; 'Test of Sameness' is Key || Supreme Court: Expecting a Minor to Respond to a Public Court Notice is ‘Perverse’ || SC: Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies to S. 11 Arbitration Act, Barring Fresh Arbiration After Abandonment

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 :