Allahabad HC: MPs, Judges and Ministers May Use ‘Hon’ble’; Civil Servants are Not Entitled to it || Calcutta HC: Salary Withholding and Harassment Claims are Not Defamation Without Reputational Harm || Gauhati HC: Officer Resigning Without New Govt Appointment Cannot Claim Pension under Assam Service || MP HC: Attachment & Auction are Quasi-Judicial Duties of Tehsildar; Action Invalid Without Mala Fide || Supreme Court: Fence-Sitters Cannot Raise Seniority Disputes Once Third-Party Rights are Settled || SC: Medical Negligence Claims Can be Filed Against Deceased Doctor’s Legal Heirs Who Inherit Estate || Supreme Court: Bail Must Be Considered if Speedy Trial Rights are Violated, Regardless of Offence || Supreme Court: Article 226 Cannot be Used to Seek FIR Registration Without Exhausting Remedies || SC: Dowry Deaths Remain a Grave Social Issue, Especially in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Karnataka || Supreme Court Outlines Principles Governing Exercise of Jurisdiction under Article 227

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 :