1982 (11) TMI 168 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Definition of 'consumer' under the Rajasthan Electricity (Duty) Act, 1962.
2. Whether the premises used by the electricity company for generating and supplying electricity constitute 'commercial purpose'.
3. Liability of the electricity company for unpaid electricity duty by consumers.
4. Eligibility for reduction and remission in electricity duty rates.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Definition of 'consumer' under the Rajasthan Electricity (Duty) Act, 1962:
The primary issue was whether the electricity company fell within the definition of 'consumer' as per Clause (c) of Section 2 of the Rajasthan Electricity (Duty) Act, 1962. The Act defines 'consumer' as "a person who is supplied with energy by a supplier and includes a supplier in respect of the energy consumed by him in or upon premises used by him for his commercial or residential purposes." The court concluded that the company, being a supplier and consuming energy in its premises, qualifies as a 'consumer' under this definition.

2. Whether the premises used by the electricity company for generating and supplying electricity constitute 'commercial purpose':
The court examined whether the premises used by the company for generating and supplying electricity to consumers were for 'commercial purpose'. The court held that "premises used for commercial purpose means premises used for the purpose of business which entails the element of profit and loss to a person." The court noted that the company's objective was to make a profit by supplying electricity, thus categorizing its premises as used for commercial purposes. The court rejected the argument that the process of transforming and transmitting electrical energy should not be considered a commercial purpose, even if it involved a manufacturing process.

3. Liability of the electricity company for unpaid electricity duty by consumers:
In Writ Petition No. 1374/1972, the company contested the demand for Rs. 28,595.80, which included unpaid electricity duty by consumers. The court observed that the company had already recovered and paid Rs. 27,074.12 from the Municipal Corporation, leaving a disputed amount of Rs. 1,521.68. The court held that the company was not liable for the unpaid amount as it had fulfilled its duty by disconnecting the supply to defaulting consumers. The court emphasized that the duty of the supplier is to collect the duty from consumers and pay it to the State Government, and the company had not failed in this duty.

4. Eligibility for reduction and remission in electricity duty rates:
The company argued for eligibility for reduced rates of electricity duty under notifications issued by the State Government, which provided benefits for energy consumed in manufacturing, production, processing, or repair of goods. The court agreed with the company's contention, stating that the terms 'manufacture, production, processing or repair of goods' are independent and not limited to the repair of goods. The court directed the respondents to extend the benefit of the notifications to the company, similar to other industries.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the electricity company falls within the definition of 'consumer' and uses its premises for commercial purposes. The company was not liable for the unpaid electricity duty of Rs. 1,521.68 from defaulting consumers. Additionally, the company was entitled to the benefit of reduced electricity duty rates as per the State Government's notifications. All three writ petitions were partly allowed, with each party bearing its own costs.