Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Prism Cement Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 March, 2024

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

                            1                W.P. No. 15394/2005


IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
            AT JABALPUR
                        BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
               ON THE 6th OF MARCH, 2024
              WRIT PETITION No. 15394 of 2005
BETWEEN:-

PRISM CEMENT LIMITED, A PUBLIC
LIMITED  COMPANY     HAVING   ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT 305, LAXMI
NIWAS APARTMENTS, AMEERPETH,
HYDERABAD AND CORPORATE OFFICE
AT RAHEJAS, PLOT NO. 8, MAIN
AVENUE,   V.B.ROAD,   SANTACRUZ,
MUMBAI,   HAVING    ITS   CEMENT
MANUFACTURING UNIT AT VILLAGE
MANKAHARI,     TEHSIL     RAMPUR
BAGHELAN, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)


                                               .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ADTIYA ADHIKARI-SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MS. SHIVANI
SINGH SENGAR- ADVOCATE)

AND

1.   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,
     THROUGH-SECRETARY,
     DEPARTMENT     OF    ENERGY,
     VALLABH    BHAWAN,   BHOPAL
     (MADHYA PRADESH)



2.   MADHYA      PRADESH     STATE
     ELECTRICITY BOARD, THROUGH
     ITS SECRETARY, SHAKIT BHAWAN,
     RAMPUR, JABALPUR (MADHYA
     PRADESH)

3.   MPPKVVCL, THROUGH ITS CMD,
     SHAKTI    BHAWAN,   RAMPUR,
     JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                 2                            W.P. No. 15394/2005


                                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ROHIT JAIN- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the

following:

                                                    ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 12.09.2005 passed by State of Madhya Pradesh by which the contention of petitioner that auxiliary consumption in respect of a captive power plant is not liable to be levied with Energy Development Cess under Section 3 (2) of Madhya Pradesh Upkar Adhiniyam as amended by Madhya Pradesh Upkar (Sansodhan Tatha Vidhi Manyata Karan) Adhiniyam, 2004 has been rejected.

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that provision of Madhya Pradesh Upkar Adhiniyam were challenged and the validity of the same was held by the High Court, however, they were declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, Madhya Pradesh Upkar (Sansodhan Tatha Vidhi Manyata Karan) Adhiniyam, 2004 was introduced. The said amendment was challenged by filing W.P. No. 1860/2004 which has been dismissed. However, SLP (Civil) No.17748/2007 (C.A. No. 5172/2007) is pending.

3. It is submitted that the short controversy involved in the present case is as to whether Energy Development Cess is payable on the auxiliary consumption in respect of captive power plant or not?

4. It is submitted that by amendment, Sub-Section 2 of Section 3 of Madhya Pradesh Upkar Adhiniyam, 1981 has been substituted which reads as under:-

"(2) Every producer of electrical energy shall pay to the 3 W.P. No. 15394/2005 State Government an energy development cess at the rate of 20 paisa per unit on the electrical energy sold or supplied to a consumer or consumed by himself or his employees by his captive power unit or diesel or other generator set of more than 10 Kilowatt capacity during any month."

5. It is submitted that the Hindi version of the said act reads as under:-

**¼2½ fo?kqr ÅtkZ dk izR;sd mRiknd ml fo?kqr ÅtkZ ij tks fdlh ekl ds nkSjku mldh 10 fdyksokV {kerk ls vf/kd dh dSfIVo ikoj bdkbZ ;k Mhty ;k vU; tujsVj lsV ds }kjk fdlh miHkksDrk dks csph xbZ ;k iznk; dh xbZ gks ;k Loa; mlds }kjk ;k mlds dkeZpkfj;ksa }kjk mi;qDr fd xbZ gks] mtkZ fodkl midj 20 iSlk izfr ;wfuV fd nj ls jkT; "kklu dks pqdk,xkA**

6. It is submitted that there is a difference between the Hindi and English version and, therefore, Hindi version would prevail and, therefore, Energy Development Cess is not liable to be paid on auxiliary consumption in respect of captive power plant.

7. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for respondents that there is no difference in Hindi and English version. Even otherwise, it is submitted that in the light of Article 348 (3) of Constitution of India English version would prevail.

8. Heard learned counsel for parties.

9. The Hindi version and English version of Section 3 (2) of Madhya Pradesh Upkar Adhiniyam which was incorporated by Madhya Pradesh Upkar (Sansodhan Tatha Vidhi Manyata Karan) Adhiniyam, 2004 has already been reproduced.

10. This Court could not find any difference in English and Hindi version which may make the auxiliary consumption of energy for the captive power plant exempted from Energy Development Cess.

11. It has also been admitted by the counsel for petitioner that the validity of the Madhya Pradesh Upkar (Sansodhan Tatha Vidhi Manyata Karan) Adhiniyam has already been upheld by the High Court which is under challenge before the Supreme Court.

12. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out warranting interference.

13. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE AL Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Date: 2024.03.20 15:01:55 +05'30'