Karnataka High Court: N. Sanjay Gowda, J., allowed the petition and quashed the demand note.
The facts of the case are such that the petitioner is supplied electricity by the licensee i.e. Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited i.e. ‘HESCOM’. Apart from this, it is also supplying energy from the energy exchange every month which is called as purchase of electricity from Open Access Source. The petitioner is liable to pay tax on electricity consumed by it. A demand to pay a sum of Rs. 94, 47, 534 being a demand for payment was issued by HESCOM. The grievance of the petitioner is regarding whether the electricity tax which is to be paid should be levied on the price at which it purchases, be it from the licensee or from the Open Access Source. Aggrieved by the demand note, instant petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was filed on grounds of it being without jurisdiction and thus unconstitutional.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the price paid for purchase of electricity through Open Access Source is different than the price paid by it for the electricity sold to it by the licensee HESCOM.
Counsel for the respondents submitted that irrespective of source of electricity, every consumer is liable to pay tax on the electricity consumed within the State and since, admittedly, petitioner had consumed the electricity within the State of Karnataka, it was bound to pay electricity tax on the rates at which electricity has been supplied by HESCOM.
The Court observed that The Karnataka Electricity (Taxation n Consumption or Sale) Act, 1959 i.e ‘The Act’ was enacted to provide for levy of tax on consumption of electricity energy in the State of Karnataka in the year 1959 for sale of electricity energy in the State of Karnataka.
The intent of Section 3 of The Act is clear that whenever electricity is consumed by a consumer within the State of Karnataka, the consumer is bound to pay electricity tax on that on ad valorem basis at the rate of 6% on the charges payable on the electricity sold or consumed. The deliberate use of the expression “charges payable on electricity sold to or consumed by any consumers” would indicate that the charges for the electricity sold and for the electricity consumed could be different. Section 3 sub section 2 makes it clear that the source of electricity consumed by the consumers would be the yardstick for determination of the electricity charges on the basis of which an ad valorem rate have to be calculated.
Further, it was observed that as per Section 4 (1)(a), licensee is required to collect and pay to the State Government the electricity tax payable under the Act on the electricity charges included in the bill issued by him to the consumers. Thus, it is applicable in respect of electricity sold by the license.
Section 4 (1)(b) clearly states that the licensee shall collect and pay to the State Government the electricity tax payable on the units of electricity supplied to consumer by a non licensee through a license. Thus, a clear distinction is made on the manner in which the tax is paid.
The Court concluded that it is to be borne in mind that the person who sells the electricity would necessarily pay the wheeling and access charges to the licensee and the seller of the electricity would be basically using the infrastructure and paying for the distribution. The licensee, therefore, would have no preferential right.
The Court thus held “the demand made by HESCOM by computing the tax at the rate at which it was selling electricity to its consumers cannot be the basis for levying and collecting the electricity tax. HESCOM shall now calculate the electricity tax at the rate at which the petitioner had purchased the electricity from Open Access Source and issued a revised demand within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order”
In view of the above, petition was allowed.[Southern Ferro Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, W.P. No. 105054/2017, decided on 15-03-2021]
Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
Advocates before the Court:
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr Gurudas Kannur (Senior Counsel) and Mr Narayan G. Rasalkar (Adv.)
Counsel for the respondent: Ms K. Vidyawati (Add. Adv. Gen), Mr Vinayak S. Kulkarni (for R1, 2 and 5) and Mr B. S. Kamate (Adv.)