<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2009 (4) TMI 1060 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310289</link>
    <description>Fuel surcharge fixed under a tariff notification was upheld as a formula-based, subordinate legislative levy, so judicial interference was limited and the absence of hearing or detailed reasons did not by itself invalidate it. However, the computation had to remain strictly within the prescribed formula: electricity purchases from TVNL could not be inserted as if TVNL existed in the base year, and deemed supply by DVC to TISCO could not be treated as a separate rate basis for the same source. The amount paid by the coal companies was directed to be adjusted in the recalculation on actuals. The surcharge regime was sustained in principle, but the figures had to be reworked by excluding impermissible elements.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Oct 2023 11:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=729360" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 1060 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310289</link>
      <description>Fuel surcharge fixed under a tariff notification was upheld as a formula-based, subordinate legislative levy, so judicial interference was limited and the absence of hearing or detailed reasons did not by itself invalidate it. However, the computation had to remain strictly within the prescribed formula: electricity purchases from TVNL could not be inserted as if TVNL existed in the base year, and deemed supply by DVC to TISCO could not be treated as a separate rate basis for the same source. The amount paid by the coal companies was directed to be adjusted in the recalculation on actuals. The surcharge regime was sustained in principle, but the figures had to be reworked by excluding impermissible elements.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310289</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>