H.N.Seth, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, Renusagar Power Co. Ltd., has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying that demand in the letter dated 5th of January, 1971 from the Electrical Ins pector amounting to Rs. 1, 44, 400/- and the recovery of certificate dated June 21, 1971 tinder the signatures of Tehsildar, Dudhi re quiring the petitioner to pay a sum of Ru pees 1, 44, 384/- be quashed.
(2.) THE petitioner Company was in corporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The object of its incorporation was to generate, develop and supply electrical power at a place or places for which licence may be obtained and to transmit, distribute and supply such power throughout the area of supply named therein and without prejudice to the generality of the above to transmit, distribute and supply such power to and for the purposes of feeding the plant of the Hindustan Alluminium Corporation Ltd. and generally to generate, develop and sup ply power at any place or places and to transmit, distribute and supply such powei for all lawful purposes. The petitioner com pany obtained sanction of the State Gov ernment under Section 28 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 to supply electricity to Hindustan Aluminium Corpn. Ltd. vide Government notification dated 12th Nov ember, 1964. After obtaining this sanction it started constructing and erecting the power plant which was completed round about June 1967. Before, however, the plant could be commissioned, il was necessary for the petitioner to carry out start-up and testing operations for which it required some elec trical energy. Accordingly, it entered into an agreement with the U. P. State Electricity Board for the supply of 6000 K.W. of elec trical energy for purposes of start-up ope rations. By its letter dated June 29, 1967 addressed to Messrs. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation (Hindalco) of which the peti tioner company claims to be a subsidiary. The Board confirmed the agreement to sup ply electrical energy for the testing and start-up of the Renusagar power plant ac cording to the rates mentioned in the rate schedule. Originally that agreement was to remain hi force for a period of six weeks but that period was subsequently extended. JJQ pursuance of that agreement, the peti tioner Company deposited Rs. 1, 20, 000/- by way of security which was either refundable and/or adjustable on termination of the supply under that agreement. The supply under the agreement commenced on 14th of July, 1967 and con tinued upto 5th November, 1967. The State Electricity Board submitted monthly bills for the electrical energy consumed during July to November, 1967, hi accordance with the agreement, amounting to Rs. 5, 77, 636 which were duly paid by the petitioner com pany. It may be mentioned that at the time of submission of these bills, the petitioner was not required to pay any electricity duty under the provisions of the U. P. Electricity Duty Act, 1952. After making certain ad justments it was found that from out of the security amount deposited by the petitioner a sum of Rs. 62, 976 became refundable to it. This sum was ultimately adjusted against other amounts due from the Hindalco in March, 1968.
(3.) AFTER about a year and a half, by a letter dated 16th June, 1969, the Assist ant Electrical Inspector informed the Execu tive Engineer, Riband Hydel Generation Di vision that the Renu Saga Power Company was liable to pay electricity duty at the rate of 25%, amounting to Rs. 1, 44, 000, in res pect of the power consumed by it from July 14, 1967 to 6th of November, 1967. This duty had not been charged from the peti tioner. The Executive Engineer was there fore requested that he should take immedi ate steps for realizing the duty under inti mation to him. The Executive Engineer, Hydel Generation Division, thereupon, asked the petitioner to pay the duty at an early date. The petitioner by its letter dated Nov ember 5, 1969 denied its liability to pay the duty demanded. The Electrical Inspector and die State Electricity Board, however, went on pressing their demand for payment of electricity duty and the petitioner in the like manner continued to refute its liability. Ultimately, the petitioner received a letter dated January 8, 1971 from the Assistant Engineer, enclosing therewith a copy of the Government order dated January 21, 1969 demanding payment of Rs. 1, 44, 384/-. The petitioner once again wrote to the Executive Engineer that the duty was not payable by it In the meantime, the petitioner received letters from the Electrical Inspector dated 5-1-1971 stating that if duty was not paid by January 16, 1971 proceedings for its re covery would be taken under Section 7 of U. P. Act XXIIl of 1952. This letter was followed by a recovery certificate dated June 21, 1971 from the Tehsildar Dudhi. The petitioner contends that under the pro visions of U. P. Electricity Duty Act, 1952, no duty was payable by it in respect of the electricity consumed by it for the purposes of testing and start-up of the Renusagar Power Plant. In any case, as the duty had not been demanded by the Electricity Board along with the monthly bills submitted by it, it could not be said that the petitioner had failed to pay the duty in the prescribed manner and as such no proceedings for its recovery, as arrears of land revenue, could be taken under Section 7 of the Act The petitioner further contends that the State Electricity Board supplied electrical energy to Obra Power Station in similar circum stances but they did not charge any electri city duty from them. Action of the respon dents, in seeking to recover duty from it is discriminatory and contravenes the provi sions of Art 14 of the Constitution. In the circumstances it prays that the proceedings for recovery of the duty should be quashed.;