LexRAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD versus CESS APPELLATE COMMITTEE AND ANR. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
v.
CESS APPELLATE COMMITTEE AND ANR. ETC.
OCTOBER 8, 1990
[S. RANGANATHAN AND A.M. AHMADI, JJ.)
Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, J9J4{-Th~ Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1971/The Water (Pre-
vention and Control of Pollution) Cess Rules, 1978. Sections 25( 1),
26/Section 7/Rule 6-Trade effluent-Treatment of-Liability to pay
C cess-Grant or refusal of rebate-:--Role of Assessing Authority.
The Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 was
enacted inter alia to provide for the prevention and control of water
pollntion, the maintaining or restoring of wholesomeness of water, etc ..
D Section 25 of the said Act provides that no person shall without the
consent of the State Board, bring into use any new or altered outlet for
the discharge of sewage or trade effiuent into a ~ream or well, or begin
to make any new discharge of sewage or trade effiuent into a stream or
well. Section 26 lays down that persons discharging sewage or trade
effluent into a stream or well before the commencement of the Act shall
E apply for consent within a period of three months of the Constitution of
State Board. Thereafter the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollu-
tion) Cess ~ct, .1977 was enacted to provide for the levy and collection of
cess on water ronsumed by persons carrying on certain industries,
Power (Thermal & Diesel) Generating Industry was one such industry
included at item No. 14 in Schedule I to the Act. Section 3 of the 1977
F Act provides that there shall he levied and collected a cess for the
purposes of the 1974 Act and utilisation thereunder. The cess under the
Act is made payable by every person carrying on any specified industry
and the same has to be calculated on the basis of the water actually
consumed at rates specified in the Schedule. Section 7 of the Act pro-
vides for rebate.
G
/
The appellant has established a Thermal Power Station on the
bank of River Chamhal for generating energy. It consnmes water from
the river for condensor cooling. After the water is used for cooling, it is
1reated as a trade effiuent in the neutralisation plant before it is dis-
H charged iuto the river. According to the appellant, the temperature,
,
120
R.S.E.B. v. CESS COMMITTEE
121
after following the prescribed procedure, is brought down· to below
40°C, when it is discharged into the river. The appellant had also instal-
led a 0.4 MGD plant for treatment of sewage. According to the appel-
lant both these plants are working satisfactorily. The appellant, as
required by the rules, submitted monthly returns of the water con-
sumed from the river for its Thermal Station for the period from July
1983 to January 1984 and February 1984 to June 1984. The respondent-
authority, assessed the cess at Rs.13,13,710 for the first period and
Rs.9,42,013 for the subsequent period. No rebate was allowed under
Section 7 of the 1977 Act on the ground that the so-called nentralisation
plant was not a plant for the treatment of sewage or trade effinent
within the meaning of the said provision.
The appellant filed an appeal under section 13, in respect of the
cess claimed for the period Juiy 1983 to January 1984, but the appellate
authority dismissed the same holding that the cess was correctly asses-
sed and that the appellant was not entitled to rebate. As regards the
period from February 1984 to June 1984, the appellant submitted a
review petition which was rejected by respondent No. 2. Thereupon,
the appellant filed separate writ petitions before the High Court chal-
lenging the assessment orders. Both the writ petitions were dismissed by
the High Court. The High Court opined that there was nothing on
record to show that the appellant had applied for consent of the State
Board to instai a plant either under section 25 or section 26 of the 1974
Act nor was there any evidence to show that such consent was given. It
accordingly held that the authorities under the Act had tightly disal-
lowed the claim of rebate to the appellant under section 7. Against the
orders of the High Court as also against various assessment orders
which were passed subsequent to the orders of the High Court the
appellant has filed these appeals, after obtaining special leave.
Allowing the appeals, and remanding the cases to the Assessing
Authority for fresh disposal, this Court,
HELD: A plant has undoubtedly been installed for the treatExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.