SC: Under RTE Act, States Cannot Justify Low Teacher Pay by Citing Centre’s Failure to Release Funds || Supreme Court: While a Child’s Welfare is Paramount, It is Not the Sole Factor in Custody Disputes || Supreme Court: High Court Cannot Reject a Plaint While Exercising Jurisdiction under Article 227 || SC: Merely Leasing an Apartment Does Not Bar a Flat Buyer’s Consumer Complaint Against the Builder || Delhi HC: Unproven Adultery Allegations Cannot be Used to Deny Interim Maintenance under the DV Act || Bombay HC: Storing Items in a Fridge isn’t Manufacturing and Doesn’t Make Premises a Factory || Kerala HC: Disability Pension is Not Payable if the Condition is Unrelated to Military Service || Supreme Court: Award Valid Even If Passed After Mandate Expiry When Court Extends Time || Jharkhand HC: Regular Bail Plea During Interim Bail is Not Maintainable under Section 483 BNSS || Cal HC: Theft Claims and Public Humiliation Alone Don’t Amount To Abetment of Suicide U/S 306 IPC

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 :