Supreme Court: Non-Signatory Can Be Bound By an Agreement if Involved in Performing the Contract || Supreme Court: 'Washed-Off Theory' Inapplicable in Assessing Employee Retention Suitability || SC Directs States/UTs to Grant Ex-Servicemen Quota to Cadets Disabled 40% or More in Training || Delhi High Court Quashed Cases over Allegations of Excess Lead Content in Maggi Noodles || Madras High Court: Advocates Cannot Hinder Police From Producing Arrested Lawyers Before a Court || Allahabad HC Awarded Rs. 4.75 Lakh Compensation Over Illegal Vehicle Confiscation in a Beef Case || Allahabad High Court: Strong Suspicion, Not Proof of Guilt, is Sufficient to Frame Charges || Delhi HC: Prior Sanction Not Required Where Cognizance Preceded 2018 PC Act Amendment || Bombay High Court: The Notion of a "Perfect Victim" in Rape Cases is a Myth || Allahabad High Court: Prior Agreement With Inquiry Report Doesn't Vitiate Disciplinary Proceedings

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 :