Supreme Court Upholds Conviction as Husband Failed to Explain Wife’s Death in Matrimonial Home || Supreme Court: Crime Scene Re-Enactment Does Not Always Violate Right Against Self-Incrimination || Supreme Court: Cognizance Taken Without Hearing Accused under BNSS Section 223 is Void Ab Initio || Supreme Court Upholds Will in Sister’s Favour, Says Excluding Natural Heirs is Not Suspicious || Delhi HC: Absence of Public Witnesses and Videography in NDPS Recovery Relevant for Bail Decisions || Raj HC Initiates Suo Motu Cognizance Over Severe Water Crisis in Jodhpur, Issues Interim Directions || Del HC: Courts Cannot Direct, Monitor Inquiry Into Police Delay in Investigation After Bail Decision || Supreme Court: After the BNSS, a Pre-Cognizance Hearing is Mandatory in PMLA Cases || SC: Landowners Cannot be Forced to Waive Statutory Compensation to Claim Other Benefits || Supreme Court: Banks are Lenient With Big Borrowers But Strict With Ordinary Loan Applicants

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 :