Back
2002 (1) JLJ 428
A.M. Sapre, J.
Jyoti Overseas Ltd. (M/s.) v. M.P. Electricity Board and others
Writ Petition No. 994 of 1995; Decided on 3.1.2002.
Shekhar Bhargava with Smt. R. Bhargava for petitioner; Surjeet Singh for respondents.
A dispute arose while opting for the tariff between the petitioner and the Board as to at what rate the petitioner is liable to pay electricity charges. The contention of the petitioner was that they, being engaged in the business of manufacture of various kinds of cloth are governed by the electricity tariff applicable for Textile Mills as defined in notification dated 1.12.1988 issued by the Board (Annexure P-8) whereas the contention of the Board was that petitioner cannot be regarded as a textile mill nor they can be regarded as a manufacturer of cotton as provided in the notification, and hence no benefit of the tariff which is applicable to textile mills can be extended to petitioner. According to Board, the petitioners case was governed by residuary entry of notification, i.e., VII.....As a consequence, the demand of electricity bills were raised on the petitioner as per rates specified in clause VII.
It is against this decision and the impugned demands, the petitioner has felt aggrieved and filed this writ. [Para 3 Held: The goods manufactured by the petitioner is in fact cotton and can certainly be classified as Cotton Fabrics made out of cotton. [Para 17 In my opinion, the aforesaid facts which are undisputed and are matters of record as emerge from the judicial finding recorded by the CEGA T, one can conclude that cotton fabric manufactured by the petitioner is textiles as falling in clause IV so as to get the benefit of tariff applicable to textile mills. AIR 1979 SC 300 followed. [Para 19]
(2) Interpretation of Statutes -- "textile" as used in notification of MPEB -- exclusion confined to industries engaged in ginning, spinning and processing of cloth, and manufact uring HDPEIPP Sacks, etc. -use is not mentioned -- it is not permissible to speculate what might have been intended and to twist and bend language to fit presumed intention. 41 STC 409 SC followed. [Paras 21 & 22]
(3) Constitution of India -- Art. 141 -- interpretation of the term "textile" in context of taxing statute -- is applicable to the word‘ ‘textile" wherever it occurs. [Para 23]
(4) Words and Phrases – ‘textile‘ as used in notification of MPEB – is woven fabric – use is not a consideration. AIR 1979 SC 300 [Para 19
¼1½ fo|qr & VSfjQ & oL= fey dks ykxw fuEurj VSfjQ dk Qk;nk & lwrh diM+s fofufeZr djus okys ;kph dks miyC/k gS & ^^oL=** & cquk diM+k gS && mi;ksx egRoghu gSA VSfjQ pqurs le; ;kph rFkk eaMy ds e/; bl ckjs esa fookn mn~Hkwr gqvk fd ;kph fdl nj ij fo|qr çHkkj lanÙk djus ds nkf;Rok/khu gSA ;kph dk ladFku Fkk fd fofHkUu çdkj ds diM+ksa ds fofuekZ.k ds dkjckj esa yxs gksus ds dkj.k og eaMy }kjk tkjh vf/klwpuk fnukad 1-12-1988 ¼mikca/k ih&8½ esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr oL= fey dks ykxw fo|qr VSfjQ }kjk ‘kkflr gS] tcfd eaMy dk ladFku Fkk fd ;kph dks oL= fey ugha ekuk tk ldrk] u mUgsa vf/klwpuk esa ;Fkk micaf/kr lwrh dk fofuekZrk gh ekuk tk ldrk gS] vr% oL= fey dks ykxw VSfjQ dk Qk;nk ;kph dks ugha fn;k tk ldrkA eaMy ds vuqlkj] ;kph dk ekeyk vf/klwpuk dh vof‘k"V çfof"V] vFkkZr [kaM 7 }kjk ‘kkflr gSA----ifj.kkeLo:i [kaM 7 esa fofufnZ"V njksa ds vuqlkj ;kph ls fo|qr fcyksa dh ek¡x dh xbZA bl fofu‘p; rFkk vkf{kIr ek¡xksa ls O;fFkr gksdj ;kph us ;g ;kfpdk Qkby dh gSA ¿iSjk 3 vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;kph }kjk fofufeZr eky okLro esa lwrh gS rFkk bls fuf‘pr :i ls lwr ls cus diM+s ds :i esa oxhZÑr fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¿iSjk 17 esjh jk; esa] iwoksZDr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij] tks fufoZokn gS rFkk tkslhbZth,Vh }kjk vfHkfyf[kr U;kf;d fu"d"kZ ls ;Fkk mn~Hkwr vfHkys[kxr ckrsa gSa] fu"d"kZ fudkyk tk ldrk gS fd ;kph }kjk fofufeZr lwrh diM+k [kaM 4 ds v/khu vkus okyk oL= gS ftlls mls oL= feyksa dks ykxw VSfjQ dk Qk;nk çkIr gksrk gSA , vkb vkj 1979 ,l lh 300 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 19 ¼2½ fof/k dk fuoZpu & ^^oL=** e-ç- fo|qr eaMy dh vf/klwpuk esa ;Fkk ç;qDr && viotZu vksVkbZ] drkbZ] diM+s ds çlaLdj.k rFkk ,p Mh ih bZ ih ih cksjksa vkfn ds fofuekZ.k esa yxs m|ksxksa rd lhfer & mi;ksx mfYyf[kr ugha & ;g vVdy yxkuk D;k vk‘kf;r jgk gksxk rFkk mi/kkfjr vk‘k; ds mi;qDr cukus ds fy, Hkk"kk dks rksM+uk&ejksM+uk vuqKs; ugha gSA 41 ,l Vh lh 409 ,l lh vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 21 ,oa 22 ¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq-141&djk/kku dkuwu ds lanHkZ esa vfHkO;fDr ^^oL=** dk fuoZpu & ‘‘kCn ^^oL=** dks ykxw gksxk] og tgk¡ dgha Hkh vk,A ¿iSjk 23 ¼4½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD;ka‘k & ^^oL=** e-ç- fo|qr eaMy dh vf/klwpuk esa ;Fkk ç;qDr & cquk gqvk oL= gS & mi;ksx fopkj;ksX; ckr ugha gSA , vkb vkj 1979 ,l lh 300 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 19
1. By filing this petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of a decision taken by the MPEB contained in their letter dated 12.5.1996 (Annexure P-l) and the consequential demand based on the said impugned decision dated 3.6.1995 (annexure P-2) and the consequential demand based on the said impugned decision dated 3.6.1995 (Annexure P-2), dated 12.6.1995 (Annexure P-3), dated 14.7.1995 (Annexure P-4). Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. It essentially involves an interpretation of a notification detailed infra. They, however, need mention in brief.
2. The petitioner is a limited company duly registered as such under the Companies Act. It is engaged in the business of manufacture of several kinds of cotton, cloth/fabrics. These fabrics are heavily and thickly woven with multiple warp-weft-yarns. The petitioner is having its manufacturing unit at Indore. The petitioner has entered into an agreement with the M.P. Electricity Board (for short 'Board') for supply of electricity to their manufacturing unit.
3. A dispute arose while opting for the tariff between the petitioner and the Board as to at what rate the petitioner is liable to pay electricity charges. The contention of the petitioner was that they, being engaged in the business of manufacture of various kinds of cloth are governed by the electricity tariff applicable for Textile Mills as defined in notification dated 1.12.1988 issued by the Board (Annexure P-8) whereas the contention of the Board was that petitioner cannot be regarded as a textile mill nor they can be regarded as a manufacurer of cotton as provided in the notification, and hence no benefit of the tarrif which is applicable to textile mills can be extended to petitioner. According to Board, the petitioners case was governed by residuary entry of notification, i.e., VII. Since the Board did not accept the contention of the petitioner and hence conveyed their decision by their letter dated 12.5.1995 (Annexure P-l) holding therein that petitioner will have to pay their electricity bills as per rates defined in residuary clause VII of the notification i.e., rates applicable to those units which are not falling in any other categories, i.e, 1,11,111, IV and VI. As a consequence, the demand of electricity bills were raised on the petitioner as per rates specified in Clause VII. It is against this decision and the impugned demands, the petitioner has felt aggrieved and filed this writ.
4. The respondent-Board has defended their stand and the decision taken by them in their letter dated 12.5.1995.
5. So the question that really falls for consideration in this petition is whether petitioners case is governed by Clause IV of notification dated 1.12.1888 (Annexure P-8) which has its application to textiles mills? or it is governed by Clause VII, i.e., residuary. In other words, the question that arises for consideration is whether it can be held that petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture of cloth or any of the combination of cloth so as to get the benefit of tariff applicable to textile Mills?
6. Heard Shri S. Bhargava, senior counsel, with Smt. R. Bhargava, L/c for the petitioner and Shri Surjeet Singh, L/c for the respondents.
7. L/c for the. petitioner, while assailing the impugned decision of the Board and the consequential demands based thereon, contended that on a plain reading of Clause IV of notification which is applicable to textile mills would show that it is applicable to all those units which are engaged in the business of manufacture of any cloth whether made of cotton, nylon or polyester or even combination of any of the three. Placing heavy reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Porrit and Spencer (Asia) Ltd v. State of Hariyana (AIR 1979 SC 300).
L/c urged that in fact, issue involved in this petition stands decided in favour of petitioner by the decision of Supreme Court in the case referred Supra. and hence the petitione
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
