TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court upholds transit fee hike, orders refunds for successful petitioners</h1> <h3>Kanhaiya Singh & Anr. Versus State Of U.P. & Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the legality of the 3rd amendment to U.P. Transit of Timber and other Forest Produce Rules, 1978, allowing the State to recover ... - Issues involved:The judgment addresses the legality of transit fee amendments in Uttar Pradesh and the subsequent legal challenges arising from conflicting High Court judgments.First Issue - Challenge to 3rd Amendment:The first batch of cases challenges the constitutional validity of the 3rd amendment to U.P. Transit of Timber and other Forest Produce Rules, 1978, which increased the transit fee. The petitioners, engaged in transportation of forest produce, contest the High Court's decision upholding the amendment. The Supreme Court allows the State to recover transit fee at the rate set by the 3rd amendment, pending final outcome, with provisions for refund if the petitioners succeed.Second Issue - Challenge to 4th and 5th Amendments:The second batch of cases questions the 4th and 5th amendments to the same Rules, which further increased the transit fee. The High Court struck down these amendments, leading to appeals by the State and private parties. The Supreme Court permits the State to recover fees as per the 3rd amendment for forest produce within U.P., while staying the High Court's orders on the 4th and 5th amendments.Judgment Details:The Supreme Court modifies existing orders to ensure uniformity and consistency in the recovery of transit fees. It allows the State to recover fees as per the 3rd amendment for forest produce within U.P., subject to the final outcome of the pending petitions. Refunds with interest are mandated for successful petitioners. The State must track recoveries accurately and exempt certain goods from this modification. The judgment aims to prevent further litigation and establish equitable arrangements, considering the financial implications and legal complexities involved in the transit fee disputes.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
