https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198203 The Supreme Court held that the State Government could prescribe an enhanced compounding fee for Motor Vehicles Act offences under Section 200, because the delegation was controlled by the Act and the amount could not exceed the penalty contemplated by Section 194. Compounding was treated as a voluntary available to the accused, not a mandatory levy, and the statutory scheme provided sufficient guidance to prevent arbitrariness. The challenge on the ground of excess delegation and Article 14 failed, and the prescription of the compounding fee was upheld. en-us Fri, 10 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Jan 2018 10:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198203 The Supreme Court held that the State Government could prescribe an enhanced compounding fee for Motor Vehicles Act offences under Section 200, because the delegation was controlled by the Act and the amount could not exceed the penalty contemplated by Section 194. Compounding was treated as a voluntary available to the accused, not a mandatory levy, and the statutory scheme provided sufficient guidance to prevent arbitrariness. The challenge on the ground of excess delegation and Article 14 failed, and the prescription of the compounding fee was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 10 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198203