LexTHE JIYAJEEHAO COTTON MILLS LTD. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1961
Rc11uara11 DaJ
v,
C'Jfllm~r(lr,/ Toi
Ojf1ar, C'..clrllttt.-J
Sinh4 C. J.
1961
Octoitf JJ.
.282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] stJl»i> ..
this Cturt is the <'llS<' of Ka11hai11alal Lohia v. Com·
ir.i-<sio11er of ITU"ome Tax, West Bengal('). In that
cas<', this Court has taken the same view and dis-
missed the appeal as •incompetent.'
Tho pri>sent case is a muc·h simpler one, in
which there arc no special
cireum~tances and in
which the facts have not yet he<-n finally deter-
mined. It may also he noted that the appellant haa
not challenged the vires of the Act or of any other
law.
We, therefore, think thitt we should dismiss
this appeal ae 'incompetent', without oxpressingany
opinion on the merits of the controversy. It will
be open to tho appollant to take such at.cps as it
may Le advised, in pursuing such remedies as may
be available to it under the law. The appeal is
accordingly dismissed, but in tho circumstances
without costs.
Appeal dismissed.
THE JIYAJEEHAO COTTON MILLS LTD.
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(B. P. S1NHA, C. J., J. L. KAPua, M. HmAYATULLAH,
J.C. SHAH a.nd J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.)
Electricity-Levy of duty-J'roduar, if liabk lo pay duly
on ckcricity ronmmd by him&elj-S,.ch Iffy. if ultra vircs the
Constitution-Got:tmmenl of India Acl, 1935 (26 Geo. 5 Ch. 2),
List II Entry 48H-Con.1titulion of India, /Ml I Entry 81,
Liat II, Emry 53-Central PromnCf's and Berar Electricity
Duty Act, 1919 (C. P. dJ Berar JO of 1949), as amen<k.d by
Madilya Pradeah Taxalion l IJW8 Amc11dment Acl, 1956 (JI. P.
7 of 1956), SB, Z, 8.
The appellant mill produced electricity over 100 volts
exclusively for its own consumption. It challenged the levy
of the electricity duty by the Government of Madhya Pradesh
(I) (1962) 2 S. C.R. 839.
.L
-
(1) S.C.R.
SUPREMF! COURT REPORTS
under the C. P. and Berar Electricity Act, 1949, as amended
by the Madhya Pradesh Act 7 of 1956, on the grounds,
.firstly that on proper construction of s. 3 of the Act !t was
not liable to pay any duty at all as the Table of rates did not
prescribe any rate for electrieity consumed by producers
and, serondly, the levy of duty on electricity consumed
by producer himself being in substance an excise duty could
be levied only by the Parliament under Entry Si List I.
If it was not an excise duty the levying of it was beyond the
competence of the State Legislature in the absence of any
appropriate Entry in the List.
Held, that on a combined reading of the definition of
'consumer' in s. 2(a) and 'producer' in s. 2(d-l) of the
C. P.
&
Berar Act, 10 of 1949, a producer, consuming
the electrical energy generated by him is also a consumer
as he consumes electrical energy supplied by himself, falls
squarely within the Table under s. 3 of the Act prescribing
rates of duty payable by · a consumer and is thettfore liable
to pay duty thereunder.
·
Held, futher, that the present Act for levy of duty
upon consumption of electric energy was enacted under Entry
45B of the List II of the Government of India Act, 1935,
corresponding to Entry 53 of List II of the Constitution
where as the levy of duty of excise on manufacture or pro-
duction of goods hy Parliament is under Entry 84 of List I.
The taxable event with respect to a duty of excise is
'manufacture' or 'production' ; and not 'consumption'; the
levy upon consumption of electric energy cannot be regarded
as duty of excise falling within Entry 84 of List I.
Held, also,
the language used in the Legislative
Entries in the Constitution must be interpreted in a broad
way so as to give the widest amplitude of power to the
Legislature to legislate and not in a narrow and ptndantic
sense.
Crvn. APPELLATE JuRISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 582 of 1960.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated
Febuary 5, 1959, of the Madhya Pradesh High
Court (Gwalior Bench) at Indore in Givil Misc.
Case No. II of 1959.
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Rameshwar Nath,
8. N. Andley and P. L. Vohra, for the app~llant.
B. Ben, B. K. B. Naidu and I. N. Shroff, for
the respondent.
1961
Tbe Jiy.jeerao
Cotton Mills Lid.
v.
Stat< of
Madhya Pradesh
1961
·nu J i_7aj1,,ao
Collon Mills Ltd.
..
Stau of
M odhya Pratl1;ll.
M..J"41k"' J,
284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962) SUPP.
1961. October 31. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
MunHOLKAR, J.-This is an appeal on a certi-
ficate of fitness granted by tho High Court of
Madhya Pradesh under Art. 133 (I) (a) of the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.