SC: Hindu Daughter-In-Law Widowed After Her Father-In-Law’s Death is Entitled to Maintenance || SC: Vendor Remains a Necessary Party in Specific Performance Suits Even After Transferring Property || Raj HC: Having Different Age Criteria For Contractual and Regular Appointments is Unconstitutional || Delhi HC: Registered Property Title Prevails over Claims Based on Oral Family Settlements || Gauhati HC: Only A Family Court Can Grant A Divorce under Muslim Law, Not A Civil Judge || Del HC: Courts Cannot Compel Lawyers to Disclose Sources of Documents Filed on Clients' Instructions || SC Explains When Shares Received After Company Amalgamation are Taxable as Business Income || SC: Excavators, Dumpers Etc Used Within Factories aren’t Motor Vehicles For Road Tax Purposes || SC: Complaints Alleging Fraud under Companies Act Can Be Filed Only By SFIO, Not By Private Parties || SC: Preventive Detention Cannot Override Bail and Requires Proof of a Threat to Public Order

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 :