Supreme Court of India
State of U.P. and Ors. v. M/s. Sitapur Packing Wood Suppliers Etc.
INSC stands for INDIAN SUPREME COURT. A neutral citation scheme assigned by the Court itself, so a judgment can be cited without depending on a commercial law reporter. INSC is the neutral citation scheme assigned by the Supreme Court, so a judgment can be cited without depending on a commercial law reporter.
2 Supreme Court benches have cited this judgment.
What the Court ordered
For the aforesaid reasons, we allow these appeals and hold that the levy of the transit fee is valid and the judgment of the High Court is accordingly set aside.
Judgment, page 7
From the headnote
U.P. Transit of Timber and Other Forest Produce Rules, 1978-Rule 5- • Transit fee on forest produce-Levy of-Validity- in the instant case, High Court holding transit fee invalid in absence of quid pro quo-On appeal held, c transit fee being regulatory and not compensatory, it is not necessary to establish factum of rendering of service-Thus cannot be invalidated on the ground that quid pro quo has not been established-Indian Forest Act, 1927. Writ Petitions were filed before the High Court challenging the validity of levy of transit fee on the forest produce under Rule 5 of U.P. Transit of
Where later benches applied it
- 2017 State of Uttarakhand & Ors. v. M/s. Kumaon Stone Crusher
- 2005 State of Bihar and Ors. v. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan (p) Ltd. and Ors.
Of those, 1 referred to · 1 mentioned
Sign in free to read it
- The full judgment, page by page, as published in the Supreme Court Reports
- The ratio: what the Court held, verbatim, with the page it sits on
- Every bench that relied on it, and every bench that argued against it
- Search every reported judgment, by party, citation or question
- Download the PDF, copy pinpoint citations ready for a filing
An email address, no password.