9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant was entitled to a rebate under Section 7 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977. 2. Whether the previous consent of the State Board under Section 25(1) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 was necessary for claiming the rebate. 3. Whether the water discharged from the condensor cooling plant could be considered a "trade effluent." Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Entitlement to Rebate under Section 7 of the 1977 Act The appellant sought a rebate under Section 7 of the 1977 Act, which provides a 70% rebate on cess payable if a plant for the treatment of sewage or trade effluent is installed. The High Court dismissed the appellant's claim for rebate, concluding that there was no material evidence showing the appellant had applied for or obtained consent from the State Board under Section 25 or 26 of the 1974 Act. The Supreme Court noted that Section 7 of the 1977 Act and Rule 6 of the Rules do not require the State Board's consent as a prerequisite for claiming the rebate. The appellant must demonstrate that a plant for the treatment of sewage or trade effluent was installed and functioning successfully during the relevant period. Issue 2: Necessity of State Board Consent under Section 25(1) of the 1974 Act Section 25(1) of the 1974 Act mandates previous consent from the State Board for using any new or altered outlet for the discharge of sewage or trade effluent into a stream or well. The High Court denied the rebate based on the absence of such consent. However, the Supreme Court found that the consent under Section 25(1) was not imperative for claiming rebate under Section 7 of the 1977 Act. The Supreme Court clarified that Section 25(1) operates in a different field and is not a condition precedent for the rebate under Section 7. Issue 3: Classification of Water Discharged from Condensor Cooling Plant as "Trade Effluent" The appellant argued that the water discharged from the condensor cooling plant, after being treated to reduce its temperature below 40^0C, should not be considered a "trade effluent." The Supreme Court highlighted that this determination involves a mixed question of law and fact. The water's temperature reduction process, involving lifting and dropping the water to cool it before discharge, must be examined to see if it qualifies as a treatment plant under Section 7 of the 1977 Act. Conclusion: The Supreme Court remitted the matter to the Assessing Authority to determine whether the arrangement made by the appellant for reducing the temperature of the water constitutes a treatment plant for trade effluent. The Assessing Authority was directed to allow both parties to submit relevant material and provide an opportunity for a hearing before making a fresh decision. The appellant was instructed to continue paying 30% of the cess amount and file an undertaking to pay the balance with interest if found liable. The appeals were allowed, and no order as to costs was made.
|
