SC: POCSO Guilt Presumption Not Absolute, Acquits Accused || Supreme Court: Promotion Cannot Be Claimed as a Vested Right under Repealed Rules || Supreme Court: Promotion Cannot Be Claimed as a Vested Right under Repealed Rules || SC: Unexplained 5-Day Sample Custody Gap Breached S.52A, Acquits 2 after 20 Years || P&H High Court: Illegal Search Alone Does Not Justify Quashing of Complaint under PNDT Act || Bom HC: Creating WhatsApp Group Without Employer's Permission Not Ground for Compulsory Retirement || Madras HC: Lack of Son’s Moral Support Alone Cannot Sustain Father’s Maintenance Claim under CrPC || Kerala HC: University Professor doesn't Occupy 'Public Office', Quo Warranto Not Maintainable || Bombay HC Allows Cutting of 1,237 Mangroves for Connector Bridge in Mumbai’s Western Suburbs || Calcutta HC Orders Return of 3-Year-Old to Adoptive Couple, he wasn't Abandoned

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 :