Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 1988 (7) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1988 (7) TMI 367 - SC - Companies Law


  1. 2022 (4) TMI 1350 - SC
  2. 2021 (2) TMI 568 - SC
  3. 2019 (4) TMI 2009 - SC
  4. 2017 (5) TMI 264 - SC
  5. 2016 (11) TMI 1689 - SC
  6. 2016 (10) TMI 1337 - SC
  7. 2016 (7) TMI 876 - SC
  8. 2016 (2) TMI 537 - SC
  9. 2013 (11) TMI 1799 - SC
  10. 2013 (10) TMI 1466 - SC
  11. 2008 (11) TMI 606 - SC
  12. 2008 (3) TMI 702 - SC
  13. 2007 (1) TMI 596 - SC
  14. 2006 (8) TMI 317 - SC
  15. 2006 (8) TMI 527 - SC
  16. 2005 (4) TMI 572 - SC
  17. 2003 (5) TMI 359 - SC
  18. 2003 (2) TMI 513 - SC
  19. 2003 (2) TMI 491 - SC
  20. 1999 (9) TMI 1 - SC
  21. 1997 (7) TMI 660 - SC
  22. 1994 (11) TMI 203 - SC
  23. 1990 (3) TMI 358 - SC
  24. 1989 (12) TMI 318 - SC
  25. 1989 (7) TMI 333 - SC
  26. 2022 (11) TMI 137 - HC
  27. 2022 (8) TMI 489 - HC
  28. 2020 (12) TMI 203 - HC
  29. 2020 (2) TMI 690 - HC
  30. 2019 (11) TMI 1458 - HC
  31. 2018 (7) TMI 2165 - HC
  32. 2018 (5) TMI 652 - HC
  33. 2017 (11) TMI 1987 - HC
  34. 2017 (4) TMI 574 - HC
  35. 2017 (9) TMI 1230 - HC
  36. 2017 (1) TMI 961 - HC
  37. 2016 (10) TMI 561 - HC
  38. 2016 (9) TMI 967 - HC
  39. 2016 (9) TMI 879 - HC
  40. 2015 (12) TMI 1390 - HC
  41. 2014 (11) TMI 351 - HC
  42. 2015 (1) TMI 158 - HC
  43. 2013 (11) TMI 1756 - HC
  44. 2013 (2) TMI 589 - HC
  45. 2013 (10) TMI 982 - HC
  46. 2012 (12) TMI 494 - HC
  47. 2014 (5) TMI 534 - HC
  48. 2009 (12) TMI 1018 - HC
  49. 2009 (9) TMI 919 - HC
  50. 2008 (12) TMI 408 - HC
  51. 2008 (12) TMI 401 - HC
  52. 2008 (12) TMI 3 - HC
  53. 2008 (2) TMI 947 - HC
  54. 2008 (2) TMI 406 - HC
  55. 2006 (2) TMI 294 - HC
  56. 2006 (2) TMI 161 - HC
  57. 2004 (5) TMI 572 - HC
  58. 2003 (9) TMI 780 - HC
  59. 2003 (3) TMI 719 - HC
  60. 2002 (11) TMI 666 - HC
  61. 2002 (9) TMI 870 - HC
  62. 2001 (12) TMI 834 - HC
  63. 2001 (11) TMI 55 - HC
  64. 2001 (1) TMI 71 - HC
  65. 2000 (8) TMI 61 - HC
  66. 1998 (7) TMI 63 - HC
  67. 1993 (10) TMI 353 - HC
  68. 1993 (4) TMI 262 - HC
  69. 1993 (1) TMI 245 - HC
  70. 1992 (12) TMI 173 - HC
  71. 1988 (11) TMI 352 - HC
  72. 2024 (1) TMI 189 - AT
  73. 2023 (9) TMI 1086 - AT
  74. 2023 (4) TMI 610 - AT
  75. 2022 (12) TMI 619 - AT
  76. 2022 (12) TMI 684 - AT
  77. 2022 (5) TMI 475 - AT
  78. 2022 (1) TMI 364 - AT
  79. 2021 (11) TMI 200 - AT
  80. 2018 (11) TMI 1112 - AT
  81. 2017 (9) TMI 777 - AT
  82. 2017 (3) TMI 1024 - AT
  83. 2017 (2) TMI 715 - AT
  84. 2016 (10) TMI 649 - AT
  85. 2016 (6) TMI 1292 - AT
  86. 2015 (3) TMI 748 - AT
  87. 2014 (11) TMI 782 - AT
  88. 2014 (6) TMI 272 - AT
  89. 2014 (1) TMI 981 - AT
  90. 2012 (12) TMI 974 - AT
  91. 2014 (7) TMI 973 - AT
  92. 2012 (10) TMI 922 - AT
  93. 2010 (8) TMI 928 - AT
  94. 2009 (11) TMI 914 - AT
  95. 2008 (11) TMI 436 - AT
  96. 2007 (6) TMI 316 - AT
  97. 2007 (1) TMI 438 - AT
  98. 2005 (12) TMI 218 - AT
  99. 2005 (1) TMI 333 - AT
  100. 2002 (5) TMI 195 - AT
  101. 1996 (3) TMI 163 - AT
  102. 2020 (10) TMI 347 - Tri
  103. 2020 (2) TMI 1345 - Tri
  104. 2018 (11) TMI 775 - Tri
  105. 1998 (11) TMI 672 - AAR
  106. 2000 (10) TMI 961 - Commission
Issues Involved:
1. Whether Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. was an "own" source of generation of electricity for Hindalco.
2. Whether the order passed by the State Government was in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. was an "own" source of generation of electricity for Hindalco:
The Supreme Court examined whether Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. (Renusagar) was an "own" source of generation for Hindalco under the U.P. Electricity (Duty) Act, 1952. The Court noted that Hindalco had set up Renusagar as a wholly-owned subsidiary to fulfill its electricity needs due to the State's inability to supply sufficient power. The Court emphasized that Renusagar was established exclusively for Hindalco's use, and Hindalco had complete control over Renusagar's operations, including its financing and day-to-day management. The Court further observed that the State and the U.P. State Electricity Board had previously treated Renusagar as Hindalco's own source of generation in other contexts, such as power cuts. The Court concluded that the corporate veil should be lifted, treating Renusagar and Hindalco as one entity, and thus, Renusagar's power plant should be considered Hindalco's own source of generation. Consequently, the consumption of energy by Hindalco from Renusagar fell under section 3(1)(c) of the Act, and the applicable duty rates for own generation should be applied.

2. Whether the order passed by the State Government was in accordance with the principles of natural justice:
The Supreme Court also addressed whether the State Government's order rejecting Hindalco's application for exemption from electricity duty complied with the principles of natural justice. The High Court had previously quashed the State Government's order, directing it to reconsider Hindalco's application. The Supreme Court examined whether the State Government had considered all relevant factors, such as the cost of power to similar industries in other States, the impact on foreign exchange, and the assurance of cheap power given to Hindalco. The Court noted that the Government had indeed considered these factors and had determined that the imposition of electricity duty would not significantly affect Hindalco's production costs or profitability. The Court emphasized that decisions involving policy and public interest, such as raising revenue for development projects, should be left to the Government's discretion. The Court found no manifest error or arbitrariness in the State Government's decision and held that the principles of natural justice had been adequately adhered to. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment to the extent it had interfered with the State Government's order, but upheld the High Court's finding that Renusagar was Hindalco's own source of generation.

Conclusion:
The appeal was disposed of with the direction that the electricity bills must be computed based on the rate applicable to Hindalco's own source of generation from Renusagar. The respondents were directed to pay the recomputed bills within two months. The Supreme Court's decision emphasized the importance of lifting the corporate veil to reflect the economic realities and the discretion of the Government in policy matters involving public interest.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates