Prakash Tatia,C.J.

Heard the counsels for the parties in the Writ Petition (T) No. 2890 of 2011, 6163 of 2006, 667 of 2007 as well as in W.P.(T) No. 2847 of 2008. In these cases, the issues, the facts and question of laws are common, and therefore, they have been considered together and are being decided by this common judgment. However, so far as the W.P.(T) No.658 of 2007, 646 of 2007, 645 of 2007, 656 of 2007 and W.P.(T) No. 650 of 2007 are the matters, wherein the counsels for the parties have submitted that these matters may be decided after disposal of the petitions referred above because the decision in above matters will have material bearing on their petitions and/or some of the petitions may also stand covered by the judgment which is going to be rendered in the writ petition No.2890 of 2011, 6163 of 2006, 667 of 2007 and 598 of 2007 in spite of having some more points raised in these petitions.

2. We take the facts of the case of W.P.(T) No. 6163 of 2006( M/s Atibir Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd) because of the reason that the said writ petition was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court by the judgment dated 11.1.2007. But, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3450 of 2008 in the case of this writ petitioner-Atibir Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd. sent back the matter to this Court for deciding in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 30.4.2008.

3. In W.P.(T) No.6163 of 2006 M/s Atibir Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd., challenged the order dated 3.3.2006 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Giridih Circle, Giridih, whereby the petitioner's application Dated 26.2.2006 for cancellation of registration certificate issued under Rule 4 of the Bihar Electricity Duty Rules, 1949, and for refund of the amount paid by way of electricity duty was rejected. The said Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes also directed the writ petitioner to make the payment of the electricity duty together with the surcharge.

4. The learned Division Bench of this Court considered the definition of the ‘consumer’ and the ‘licensee’ as given in the relevant of Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1948, which has been adopted by the Jharkhand Stated vide notification dated 22.12.2000 in exercise of power conferred by Section 85 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000,and also considered the Section 28 of the Indian Electricity Act. In view of the fact that the reason of dispute was with respect to the levy of the electricity duty and its liability upon the parties; the Division Bench also in detail considered the Section 3 which provides incidence of the duty along with the Section 4 which provides for mode and manner of payment of duty. Thereafter, the Section 3A of the Act of 2003 by which surcharge is levied was considered. The Division Bench after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Damodar Valley Corporation Vrs. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 1976 (3) SCC 710, observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already discussed that one of the function of the D.V.C. is for generation, transmission and distribution of the hydro-electric and thermal electrical energy. And while answering the question in affirmative whether the D.V.C. is liable to pay the electricity duty under the Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1948 as amended by Bihar Electricity Duty Amendment Act of 1964, also considered the Clause 1 and 2 of the Article 288 of the Constitution of India. Then, another case was considered by the Division Bench in its judgment delivered in the case of Tata Iron & Steel Company Vrs. State of Bihar Ors i.e., the judgment of the Patna High Court reported in 1993 (2) PLJR 59 M/s Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. The Tata Steel and Iron Co.Ltd. is also one of the petitioners before us. In addition to above, also considered the case of Bihar Alloy & Steel Limited Versus State of Bihar and Anr., reported in 1996(1) PLJR 824, Steel Authority of India Limited Versus State of Bihar, r