Electricity Duty — Consultation with Regulatory Commission — Effect of Non-Consultation
A.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1998 — Section 12(4)
Non-consultation with APERC before enactment of Amendment Acts does not render the legislation incompetent. Such consultation is a salutary requirement but breach thereof does not invalidate the statute.
Relied on: M.P. Cement Manufacturers Association v. State of M.P.
Paras 24–27
Electricity Duty vis-à-vis Tariff — Cross Subsidy — Scope of Regulatory Control
Constitution of India — Entry 53, List II; Entry 38, List III
Electricity Act, 2003 — Sections 61 & 65
Levy of electricity duty under Entry 53 is distinct from tariff fixation under Entry 38.
Cross-subsidy forms part of tariff; electricity duty is a tax over and above tariff.
Regulatory Commissions have no supervisory role over levy of duty.
Duty may be used by State to fund direct subsidy under Section 65.
Relied on: Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd. v. Electricity Inspector
Paras 28–37
Amendment Act — Commencement — “Still Born” Contention
Act 10 of 2021 — Section 1(2) (as amended by Act 10 of 2024)
Where commencement clause required notification but later amendment deemed Act to have come into force from date of Gazette publication, defect cured retrospectively.
Act not “still born”.
Paras 38–39
Presidential Assent — When Required
Constitution of India — Articles 200, 201, 254(2), 301–304
Fresh Presidential assent not required for amending Act merely because principal Act had obtained assent, unless constitutional requirement independently attracted.
Amendments under Entry 53 (State List) not requiring assent in absence of repugnancy or trade restriction.
Relied on: Syed Ahmed Aga v. State of Mysore
Paras 40–42
Delegated Legislation — Essential Legislative Function — Excessive Delegation
Doctrine of Non-Delegation
Legislature cannot abdicate essential legislative function.
Delegation permissible if policy and guidelines discernible in statute.
Change of policy cannot be delegated.
Relied on:
-
In re Delhi Laws Act, 1912
-
Rajnarain Singh v. Patna Administration Committee
Paras 43–44
Taxation — Delegation of Rate Fixation
Fixation of rate of tax is not per se an essential legislative function if outer limits and guidance exist.
Where statute prescribes minimum and maximum rate (6 paise to ₹1 per unit), delegation to executive to fix rate within range is valid.
Relied on:
-
Corporation of Calcutta v. Liberty Cinema
-
Devi Das Gopal Krishnan v. State of Punjab
Paras 45–46 (read with later findings in Issue 1E)
Electricity Duty — Categorisation of Consumers — Lack of Policy Guidance
Delegation enabling Government to identify different consumer categories without statutory criteria, standards, or policy amounts to excessive delegation.
Objects and Reasons cannot supply missing legislative guidance.
Power to determine taxable classes without guidance amounts to abdication of essential legislative function.
Paras 43–46 (read with findings under Issue 1E)
Constitutional Law — Taxation Power vs Regulatory Power
Plenary taxing power under Entry 53, List II cannot be controlled by regulatory framework under Entry 38, List III.
Duty and tariff operate in distinct constitutional fields.
Paras 28–29, 37
OPERATIVE CONCLUSIONS
-
Non-consultation with APERC — Not fatal (Paras 24–27)
-
Levy of duty not controlled by tariff regulation (Paras 28–37)
-
Act 10 of 2021 validly brought into force (Paras 38–39)
-
Presidential assent not required for Acts 10 of 2024 & 23 of 2024 (Paras 40–42)
-
Delegation of rate fixation (within limits) — Valid (Paras 43–46 read with Issue 1E findings)
-
Delegation of categorisation power without guidance — Invalid (Issue 1E findings)
No comments:
Post a Comment