Telangana High Court: Barring People with over Two Children From Polls Violates No Fundamental Right || Del HC Clarifies That Breach of Promise to Marry is Not The Same as False Promise Amounting To Rape || Delhi High Court Rules Law Students Cannot be Barred From Exams For Not Meeting Minimum Attendance || Delhi HC: Only a Sessions Court, Not an Ilaqa Magistrate, Can Order Further Probe After Committal || Allahabad High Court: Protecting Homebuyers’ Interests is Paramount in Real Estate Insolvency || Allahabad HC: Police Can Freeze Accounts on Suspicion; Affected Party May Seek Magistrate’s Relief || NCLAT: Claimants Must Prove Asset Ownership; Liquidator Need Not Establish Title of Assets in Custody || NCLAT: Director’s Resignation Doesn’t Release Personal Guarantor from Continuing Guarantee Liability || NCLAT: Delay Condonable When Composite Appeal Filed in Time is Refiled after Registry’s Objection || Supreme Court: Upper Floors Can be Converted for Commercial Use Only after Paying Conversion Charges

Kalyan Chemicals v. Government of A.P. and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (12 Aug 2015)

Reasonableness of fee depends on facts of case and appreciation of previous fee with 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 :