IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, CJ., ARVIND KUMAR VERMA, J.
Jindal Steel And Power Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondents
WA No. 567 of 2018
Decided on : 01-03-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against electricity duty demand based on exemption claims. (Para 1) |
| 2. exemption details for power plant operation. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. arguments concerning applicability of electricity duties. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. observations on legislative intent and application. (Para 7 , 15) |
| 5. technical arrangements for auxiliary power consumption. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. arguments centered on incorrect application of exemptions. (Para 10) |
| 7. challenging the demands based on additional grounds. (Para 12 , 22) |
| 8. legal framework for taxing electricity duty. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 9. determination of taxable events and compliance with statutory framework. (Para 35 , 38) |
| 10. conditions regarding exemptions from electricity duty. (Para 36 , 39) |
| 11. final decision dismissing appeal on legal merits. (Para 40) |
| 12. final ruling on the appellant's appeal. (Para 41) |
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
1. This is an appeal under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act 2006 read with Rule 158(10) of the CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT RULES , 2007 seeking to challenge the order dated 08.05.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 6819 of 2008 by which his challenge to order dated 28.06.2008 by which the appellant/Company’s appeal was rejected and further the challenge to the demand notice dated 09.12.2005 by which a demand of Rs. 1,64,69,790, has been dismissed.
2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the appellant/Company had set up a captive power plant (for short, the CPP) of 265.70 MW at its Steel Plant at Raigarh to meet its power requirement. The said power plant of appellant comprises of three units, Power Plant – I, Power Plant – II and Power Plant – III which in turn, comprise with 9 TG sets generating power at 11 KV each. The appellant’s new industrial unit was granted exemption from payment of electricity duty under Section 3 -B of the Chhattisgarh Electricity Duty Act , 1949 (for short, 'the Act of 1949') on 29-7-2000 exempting the appellant Unit for a period of ten years from payment of electricity duty from the date of commissioning, as the appellant-Unit was a new industrial unit. It was the case of the appellant Company that it had consumed the electricity generated from TG-7 which was admittedly exempted from payment of electricity duty and as the auxiliary consumption was made by TG sets 1, 3, 5 & 6 and exemption from paying electricity duty of TG sets 1, 3, 5 & 6 had already expired, the appellant/Company was paying electricity duty in terms of the Act of 1949 for the said other TG sets. It was the further case of the appellant Company that the system of power plant of appellant is so designed that except for TG-7 all other TGs are in parallel with the Grid of the CSEB. TG-7 caters to house load of appellant and also to the auxiliary requirements of TGs 1, 3, 5 and 6, which are part of Unit I of the power plant of appellant. Thus, in effect an auxiliary bus has been created in the system of the appellant. The entire set up/arrangement has been made with the knowledge and technical approval of the CSEB and the office of the Electrical Inspector of the Government of Chhattisgarh.
3. It is also the case of the appellant that the system of auxiliary bus has been designed in the system with the sole purpose that in the event a grid failure occurs for the Grid experiences any fluctuations or disturbances, the TGs 1, 3, 5 & 6 of appellant do not stop altogether and the TG sets at least keep on running at a minimum power supplied by TG-7. TG-7 is designed to take care of the auxiliary requirements of the TGs 1, 3, 5 & 6 of Unit I of the power plant of the appellant Company. On 9.12.2005, respondent No.3 issued the demand notice demanding Rs. 1,64,69,790/- as arrears of electricity duty pertaining to the period from December, 2001 to March, 2005 in respect of the TG sets whose exemption period had expired stating that respondent No.2 totally ignored the fact that the power sought to be taxed was being gener
Jayajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. Birlanagar Gwalior v. State of M.P. {AIR 1963 SC 414}
Swaroop Vegetables v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1983) 4 SCC 24
S. Sundaram Pillai & Ors. v. V.R. Pattabiraman & Ors. {1985 1 SCC 591}
Maharashtra University of Health Sciences v. Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal {(2010) 3 SCC 786}
Bihta Cooperative Development Cane Marketing Union Ltd. & Another v The Bank of Bihar and Others
Electricity duty applies to auxiliary consumption from units whose exemption has expired, based on statutory provisions governing duty applicability.
The court upheld the increased electricity duty as legal, distinguishing between tariff and duty, affirming legislative competence for revenue augmentation while rejecting claims of discrimination un....
A lessee consuming electricity generated from a power plant is liable to pay electricity duty, even if the lessor is exempted, due to strict compliance requirements of exemption conditions.
The proviso to Sec. 8 of the Electricity Duty Act, 2016 was interpreted as an exception or qualification to the principal provision, allowing the authorities under Sub-Sec. (1) to decide all types of....
(1) When a right is created by a statute which itself prescribes remedy or procedure for enforcing right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking discretio....
Amendments to taxation statutes cannot change their fundamental basis without corresponding amendments to the charging provisions, which must be clear and unambiguous to avoid excessive delegation of....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.