SC: Under Order XXI Rule 102 CPC, A Transferee Pendente Lite Cannot Obstruct Execution of a Decree || SC: RTE Act promotes fraternity and equality by children of judges and vendors studying together || MP High Court: Aadhaar and Voter ID Cards are Not Definitive Proof of Date of Birth || Chhattisgarh HC: Second Marriage During Subsisting First Marriage Void Unless Custom Permits It || Allahabad HC: Will in Favor of Someone Does Not Affect Compassionate Appointment Based on Dependency || MP High Court: Mere Illness of a Family Member, If Improving, is Not Sufficient for Interim Bail || Bombay HC: ?25K Fine for Flying Kites With Nylon Manjha; Parents Must Ensure Responsible Conduct || Delhi High Court: Home State Must be the First Preference For Claiming Insider IFS Cadre Allocation || SC: Hindu Daughter-In-Law Widowed After Her Father-In-Law’s Death is Entitled to Maintenance || SC: Vendor Remains a Necessary Party in Specific Performance Suits Even After Transferring Property

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 :