9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 961X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2020, 941 of 2020, 943 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 3-11-2022 - Hon ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh And Hon ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan For the Petitioner : Mr. M.S.Mittal , Sr. Adv., Mr. Rahul Lamba, Adv., Mr. Salona Mittal, Adv. And Mr. Ranjeet Kushwaha, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II. ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Since all these writ applications are in relation to the same petitioner for respective financial years and as similar issue is involved in all these cases, all are heard together and disposed of by this common order. The petitioner in all these writ applications have prayed for quashing and setting aside the respective Assessment Orders, all dated 15.02.2020 and also the notice of demand dated 19.02.2020 issued by Respondent No.3 to the petitioner for respective financial years on the ground that the demand made in all these writ applications are absolutely unlawful and has been raised by the respondents without jurisdiction as this court, in the case of M/s Anjaney Ferro Alloys Ltd. vs. State of Jharkhand Ors., reported in 2012 SCC Online Jhar 426 has declared that Section 5 of the Jharkhan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... W.P.(T) No. 938 of 2020 2013-14 Rs.13,59,770/- Rs.3,10, 576/- Rs. 10,48,194/- Rs.13,59,770/- (Annexure-5) W.P.(T) No. 941 of 2020 2014-15 Rs.11,91,250/- Rs.3,15,298/- Rs. 8,74,952/- Rs.11,91,250/- W.P.(T) No. 943 of 2020 2011-12 Rs.18,13,951/- Rs.3,25,193/- Rs.14,87,758/- Rs.18,13,951/- (Annexure-5) W.P.(T) No. 939 of 2020 2012-13 Rs.15,66,936/- Rs.3,14,761/- Rs.12,51,175/- Rs.15,66,936/- 4. Mr. M. S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Rahul Lamba and Mr. Salona Mittal, learned counsels for the petitioner submits that the said assessment order, dated 15.02.2020, is completely based on the provision of Jharkhand Electricity Duty (Amendment) Act, 2011 which has already been declared as ultra vires and illegal by this Court in the case of M/s Anjaney Ferro alloys Ltd. (supra). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the counter affidavit filed in the present relied upon the definition of bulk supply as introduced in the rules vide aforesaid Notification dated 08.10.2011 and ignores the amended definition of bulk supply which stood amended by virtue of aforesaid notification dated 18.06.2012 whereby commercial consumers were omitted. 5. Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner is a commercial establishment and is in the business of operating a hotel in the name of M/s. Capitol Hill at Main Road Ranchi. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a bulk purchaser of electricity and uses the energy purchased to supply the same in its commercial establishment. Learned counsel further submits that after the judgment rendered by this Court in the matter of M/s Anjaney Ferro alloys Ltd. (Supra), there have been some amendments in the rules known as The Jharkhand Electricity Duty(Amendment) Rules, 2012 introduced by the State Government vide S.O. 4 dated 18.06.2012. Learned counsel contended that after reading the definitions and the amendment conjointly and the fact that the petitioner is a High-Tension consumer, it is apparent th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. In such a fact situation, the legal maxim sublato fundamento cadit opus meaning there by that foundation being removed, structure/work falls, comes into play and applies on all scores in the present case. 8. It further seems that the entire counter affidavit of the Respondents is based on certain amendments, brought in the Bihar Electricity Duty Rules,1949 by way of the Jharkhand Electricity Duty (Amendment) Rules, 2012 introduced by S.O.No.4 dated 18.06.2012, in order to support the Respondent s impugned Assessment Order, dated 15.02.2020 and to show that the petitioner is liable to pay the electricity duty to the Respondent department, whereas from bare perusal of the impugned Assessment Order it is evident that the assessment is based upon Section 5 (wrongly mentioned as Section 4 in the impugned Assessment Order) of the Jharkhand State Electricity Duty (Amendment) Act, 2011 (which section has since been struck down by this Court) and not on the said Jharkhand Electricity Duty (Amendment) Rules, 2012. Moreover, it is evident from the 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es is valid in law. 11. Even the Amendment Rules, 2012 do not create any liability on the petitioner to pay the electricity duty to the Respondent Department. The Respondents have relied on the definition of the term Assessee provided in Rule 2(b) of the Amendment Rules, 2012 to show that the Petitioner is a consumer who is supplied with bulk supply of energy and thus is an Assessee who is also liable to pay the electricity duty. The definition of assesse as provided is said Rule 2(b) is reproduced hereinbelow: 2(b) assessee means: the licensees, the electricity traders, the captive generating plants, and such consumers who are supplied with bulk supply of energy by a licensee or by a distribution licensee or by the electricity traders, who are liable to pay duty under the Act but does not include the domestic consumers and such commercial consumers who do not fall in the categories cited hereinbefore. In this regard, it is pertinent to consider the term bulk supply , which is also defined under the said Rules, in order to appreciate whether the supply of electricity to the petitioner falls within the meaning of bulk supply . The term bulk supply has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
