Case: The Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh

2. The appellant is a textile mill at Gwalior in Madhya Pradesh. It generates electricity for the purpose of running its mills and for other purposes connected therewith. It does not sell electrical energy to any person.3. Under the provisions of the Central Provinces and Berar Electricity Duty Act, 1944 (No. X of 1949) as amended by the Madhya Pradesh Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 1956 (Act No. VII of 1956) the Government of Madhya Pradesh levied upon the appellant electricity duty amounting to Rs. 2,78,417 for a certain period. The appellant paid it under compulsion and thereafter preferred a writ petition to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Art. 226 of the Constitution in which it challenged the validity of the levy on two grounds.The first ground was that upon a proper construction of S. 3 of the C.P. and Berar Electricity Duty Act, 1949 as amended by the Madhya Pradesh Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 1956 the appellant would not be liable to pay any duty at all. The second ground was that if the Act permitted the levy of duly on electricity consumed by the producer himself it was ultra vires the Constitution because in substance it would be a duty of excise which can be levied only by Parliament under Entry 84 of List I and that even if it was not excise duty it was beyond the competence of the Madhya Pradesh Legislature to levy it in the absence of any appropriate entry in ListII. The petition was summarily rejected by the High Court, but upon an application made by the appellant it granted to it certificate of fitness, as already stated.

Reasoning: A producer consuming the electrical energy generated by him is also a consumer, that is to say, he is a person who consumes electrical energy supplied by himself.It is difficult to see the levy of duty upon consumption of electrical energy can be regarded as duty of excise falling within Entry 84 of List 1. Under that Entry what is permitted to Parliament is levy of duty of excise on manufacture or production of goods (other than those excepted expressly by that entry). The Taxable event faith respect to a duty of excise is "manufacture" or production. Here the taxable event is not production or generation of electrical energy but its consumption. If a producer generates electrical energy and stores it up, he would not be required to pay any duty under the Act. It is only when he sells it or consumes it that he would be rendered liable to pay the duty prescribed by theActs in question deal only with a certain aspect of the topic "electricity, and not with all of them. Therefore, in those Acts the word "consumption" may have a limited meaning, as pointed out by learned counsel. But the word "consumption" has a wider meaning. It means also "use- up", "spend" etc. The mere fact that a series of laws were concerned only with a certain kind of use of electricity, that is consumption of electricity by persons other than the producer cannot justify the conclusion that the British Parliament in using the word "consumption" in Entry 48-B and the Constituent Assembly in Entry 53 of List II wanted to limit the meaning of "consumption" in the same way. The language used en 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 pedantic sense. We cannot, therefore, accept either of the two grounds urged by Mr. Viswanatha Sastri challenging the vires of thewe read the two definitions together omitting the non-essentials, consumer would include "any person who consumes electrical energy supplied by a person who generates electrical energy for his own consumption." Under S. 3 a person who generates electrical energy over hundred volts for his own consumption is liable to pay duty on the units of electrical energy consumed by himself.A producer consuming the electrical energy generated by him is also a consumer, that is to say, he is a person who consumes electrical energy supplied by himself.The Table prescribes rates of duty payable with respect to electrical energy supplied for consumption and, therefore, the levy on the appellant falls squarely within the Table under S. 3 of the Act and Mr. Viswanatha Sastris argument is devoid of substance.