SC: Absence of Independent Witnesses is Not Fatal if Injured Eyewitness Testimony is Sterling || Supreme Court: Prosthetic Limb Costs Must Be Compensated To Restore Victims’ Dignity || Supreme Court: Probate Can be Revoked For Non-Impleadment of Parties and Suppression of Facts || SC: Plaint Cannot be Rejected For Valuation or Court Fee Defects Without Chance to Rectify || SC Rules Government Grants Act Overrides Rent Law, Sets Aside Eviction Proceeding Against Union Govt || SC: Civil Court Has No Jurisdiction in Boundary Dispute Between Maharashtra Panchayat & Municipality || Allahabad HC: Two Criminal Cases Insufficient to Label a Person as 'Goonda' and Harm Reputation || Bom HC: Sprinkling Mustard Without Ill Intent Before a House is Not an Offence under Black Magic Act || J&K&L HC: Preventive Detention Invalid When Based on Speculative Fear of Election Disturbance || Bombay High Court: POSH Act Penalises False Complaints by Women But Not Those Who Instigate Them

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 :