NCLAT: Creditors May Choose to Proceed Against One or Multiple Guarantors as They See Fit || NCLAT Delhi: Authority Can Enforce Arbitral Award Via Resolution Professional Under IBC Section 60(5) || Bombay HC Rejects Plea For 'Eco-Friendly' Ganesh Idol Immersion, Upholds Citizens' Right to Clean Wat || Delhi HC:WhistleblowingDoesn’t Grant Employees Immunity from Transfer Orders || Delhi HC: Higher Compounding Fees Don't Apply on Second TDS Default Plea If First Was Rejected || NCLAT Rules Guarantor’s Liability Can Exceed Cap Set in Guarantee Deed on Principal Borrower’s Debt || NEET-UG 2025: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Claiming OMR Sheet Tampering by Candidate || SC Refuses Interim Bail to Shabir Ahmed Shah; Issues Notice on His Bail Petition || SC Summons MCD Commissioner over Debris at Lodhi-Era Gumti, Asks, "Is There an Ego Issue?" || SC Grants Interim Relief to YSRCP’s Pinnelli Ramakrishna Reddy in Double Murder Case of TDP Activists

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 :