SC: CIRP Need Not Be Set Aside Solely for Fraudulent Filing of Section 9 Plea || Supreme Court: Compromise Decree Passed Without Impleading Necessary Party is Void || SC: Cheque Dishonour Notice Valid if Sent to Drawer’s Address and Received by Family || J&K&L HC: Minority During Attestation Cannot Justify Decades-Long Delay in Challenging Mutation || Bombay HC: WhatsApp Circulation of Objectionable Photos Can Attract SC/ST Act || J&K&L HC: Cardiac Arrest From Stress of Long-Distance Driving is Compensable || Delhi HC: Accused Cannot Delay Trial and Then Rely on Delay to Seek Bail || Calcutta HC: Insurer Must Compensate Child’s Accidental Death Despite Driver’s Fake Licence || Bombay HC Tells X to Take Down Defamatory Post Targeting Serum Institute, CEO Adar Poonawalla || Delhi High Court Restores Arbitral Award in DMRC’s Favour Passed by Employee-Arbitrator

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 :