Patna HC: Disciplinary Authority Cannot Impose Major and Minor Penalties in a Single Order || Calcutta HC: Landlord Decides His Residential Needs; Courts Cannot Set Living Standards in Eviction || Orissa HC: Second Marriage During Subsistence of First Remains Invalid Even After First Wife's Death || Karnataka HC: Appeals Against Acquittal in Bailable Offences Lie Only Before High Court || Supreme Court: Stamp Duty on an Agreement to Sell is Leviable Only if Possession is Transferred || SC: Motive Becomes Irrelevant When Direct Evidence Such as a Dying Declaration is Available || Supreme Court Issues Directions to CoC in Builder Insolvency Cases To Protect Homebuyers’ Interests || MP High Court: Women Retain Reservation Benefits After Marriage if Caste is Recognized in Both States || Allahabad HC: Police Must Prosecute Informants of False Firs, and IOs May Face Contempt if They Fail || MP HP: Over-Age Candidate Cannot Claim Age Relaxation Due to Delay in Earlier Recruitment

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 :