MeitY: Social Media Intermediaries to Take Permission Before Launching AI Products in Country  ||  NBDSA Imposes Penalty on Several News Channels for Spreading Communal Hatred  ||  NBDSA Issue Guidelines For Broadcasting Information Related to LGBTQIA+ Community  ||  Gauhati High Court Frames Policy For Persons With Disabilities  ||  All. HC: Bail Granted to Assessee Since Proceedings u/s 70 and 74 of GST Act Pending for Too Long  ||  Kar. HC: Deflection From Terms of Compromise Will Lead to Re-Imposition of Conviction Order  ||  Supreme Court: MPs/MLAs Cannot Claim Immunity Under Constitution of India For Receiving Bribe  ||  Delhi High Court: Wife Igniting Animosity and Hostility in Child Against Father Amounts to Cruelty  ||  SC: Legal Representatives Not Responsible to Discharge Contractual Obligations of Deceased  ||  SC: Amend Arbitration Act For Prescribing Limitation Period For Applications u/s 11 of the Act    

State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. TVL. South Indian Sugar Mills Assn. and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (12 Aug 2015)

Expenses incurred in preventing misuse of industrial alcohol will suffice for quid pro quo



Fee and excise duty collected from an industry to prevent illegal activities which have no causal connection with that industry will 'metamorphose into a tax'. In a case where producers of industrial alcohol questioned the legality of a Re.1 per bulk litre fee charged by the state, the Court upheld the imposition of the fee. Recovery of the fee would be permissible, so long as expenses incurred by the state government are for ensuring that industrial alcohol is not used as potable alcohol.

Relevant : State of U.P. v. Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. MANU/SC/0833/2003 B.S.E. Brokers' Forum, Bombay and Ors. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India and Ors. MANU/SC/0069/2001 Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0595/1989


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved