SC: ‘Abandonment of Service is Not Voluntary Retirement’, Denying SBI Clerk Pension Benefits || Supreme Court: Stranger Affected by an Interim Order is Entitled to be Impleaded in Writ Proceedings || Supreme Court: Courts Cannot Replace an Authority’s Discretion, and Sets Aside Direction to Governor || SC: Title Suit Hit by Constructive Res Judicata if Omitted in Prior Injunction Suit Disputing Title || SC Clarifies Whether a Co-Operative Society Can Act as a Resolution Applicant under the IBC || Chhattisgarh High Court: Innocent Litigants Should Not be Penalized For Lapses by Their Lawyers || Delhi High Court: Marriage With the Victim Cannot Absolve an Accused of Rape under POCSO || J&K&L HC: Acquisition Lapses if 80% Compensation is Unpaid Before Possession under Section 17A || Delhi HC: Policy Number is Not Mandatory For LIC Details under RTI, But Basic Details are Required || SC: Courts Must Curb Unlicensed Money Lenders; Probes Need Not Wait For New Law

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 :