State of Mysore v. West Coast Papers Mills Ltd. & Anr.

Judgment

STATE OF MYSORE WEST COAST PAPERS MILLS LTD. & ANR. September 24, 1974 [H. R. KHANNA, M. H. BEG AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.] Mysore Electricity (Taxatld11 011 Co11sumptio11) Act,. 1959 (Mysore Act No. 14 of 1959, Sections 2( I), ,3 and sub 0sectio11s (l) and (3) of Sectio11 4- Electricity tax 011 electrical energy lost in tile course of transmission, wlletlrer warranted-Respondent, if liable to pay electricity tax 011 e/ecrica/ e11ergv used by it for ge11er,ati11g further electrical energy. The respondent company is manufacturing. paper and other products. Since the Mysore Electricity Board was not in a position to supply the entire quantity required by the respondent company, the company started generating electricity. In 1966, the appellants made a demand of Rs. 3,53,953.45 as arrears of electricity tax under the Act from the respondent for the · period from July 1959 to March 19'66.

The respondent company filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the demand notice contending that, (1) it was not liable to pay electricity tax on the quantity of electrical energy Jost in the ·course of transmission, i.e. as a result of transmission ·or transformer 'loss; and (2) some electrical energy was used by it for generation .of further electrical energy and therefore, no electricity tax was payable on the quantity of electrical energy utilised by it for generation of further electrical energy, The High Court decided on· both the points of controversy in favour of the respondent company. This appeal by certificate under article 133( I )(a) has been filed by the appellant. Allowing the appeal with respect to the second contention, HELD: (1). (Per H. R. Khanna and V. R. Krishna Iyer, JJ.) The entire scheme of the Mysore Electricity (Taxation on Consumption) Act 1959 is to tax the consumption of electrical energy.

Where some energy is riot co~sumed but ·lost before it reaches the point of consumption, the question of levy of tax on consumption of such energy would not in the very nature of things arise. The place of consumption is normally at some distance from the place where electrjcal energy is generated. Electrical energy has conse· quently to be transmitted through metal conductors to the place where it is consumed. Such transmission admittedly entails loss of some electrical energy and what is lost can plainly be not available for consumption and as such would not be consumed. To realise tax on aU the electrical energy generated would be tantamount to levying tax on generation or production of· electrical energy and not on its consumption. Such a tax on the generation or production of electrical energy is plainly not permissible .under the Act.

The fact that the consumer happens in the present case to be the same company which generated the elctrical energy would make no .. material difference. [131 B-F] Gokak Mills Ltd. v. Staf>e of Mysore (1969)2 Mysore Law Journal 99, aprroyed. Per M .. H. Beg J. (dissellling). No distinction is made anywhere in the Act between consumption for different purposes, such as generation, transmission, transformation or utilisation of electricity for any other purpose. One who generates electricity and then transmits and transforms it before utilising it for another purpose may be said to be generating it for several purposes. Spending up ot utilisation of energy for each of the purposes, whether it be generation, or transmission, or. transfor· mation, or, manufacture of some particular commodity, can be said to be a use which must necessarily fall within the ordinary .grammatical or dictionary mean!n~ of the wor~ consumption.

The consumption begi'!s immediately after electn~1ty can be s.a1d to be generated. So long a:s energy 1s spent or used up, whatever be the process or purpose of such using up1 it will be cons~mption. For n division of consumption into effective consumption and non-effective con· sumptior., there is no warrant in the relevant provisions Of the Act. [134 F·H, 135 F.G, 136 A·D] It may be tha' the electricity tax is imposed upon a pcrso~ only in the character or capacity of a consumer. It ~oes not follow f~om this that the cha~acter or cap~city of a consumer only begins when energy 1s used up fo~ a particular purpose in whi(;h a consumer is c:onsumer. If he consumes it is ev1d.ent that the charncter of a consumer attaches to him even if he is a generator or producer of c'nergy. He has then a dual c:haracter when he consumes and also generates. What the Act docs is simply to tax the using up of energy by a person what· ever be the capacity in which the use may have been made.

It is really a tax on using up and not on use in any particular character or manner. [136 F·HJ Indian Al11miniur11 Co. Ltd. v. Ti'ie C.l.T. West Bengal, Calcutta, 849 T·R 735 referred to. (2) (By Full Court) : Electrical energy can be consumed for a variety of purposes. The fact· that such energy has been used not for manufacturing some other article but for generating furthh electricity would not go to show that such c:nergy has not been consumed. Sub-section (3) of section 4 makes it clear that electricity tax would be payable if a person consumes electrical energy ~eneralcd ~ :' the consumer himself. The definition of the word "consumer" also shows that it would include a ~:rson who consumes energy generated by himself. [132 C·E, G·H] CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISli>ICTION : Civil Appeal No: 124(N) of 1971. Appeal from the judgment and order dated the August 5, 1970 of the MY.sore High Court in W.P. No. 2058 of 1970. S. V. Gupte and M. Veerappa, for the appellant. V. Krishna Murthy, P. C. .Bhartari, J. B. Dadachanji 0. c.

Mthur and Ravinder Narain, for the respondent. V. s. Desai, G. S. Ullal and B. R. Agarwala, for the interveners. KHANNA, J.-This appeal by certificate under article 133(l)(a) of the Constitution has been filed by the State of Mysore and the Electrical Inspector to the Government of Mysore against the judgment of Mysore (now Karnataka) High Court whereby that court in a petition unider article 226 of the Constitution quashed the demand made by the app<:!Jant State calling upon the West Coast Papers Mills Ltd. respondent company to pay electricity tax under the Mysore Electricity (Taxatibn on Consumption) Act, 1959 (Mysore Act No. 14 of 1959) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The two questions which arise for determination in this case are : ( 1 ) Whether electricity tax is chargeable on the quantity of' electrical energy lost in the course of transmission; and (2)

Whet1.1~r the respondent co~pany is li~ble to pay electnc1ty tax on the quantity of electncal ehqgy . used by it for generation of further electrical energy. The High Court answered both the questio~ in favour of the res- . pondent company and quashed the demand which included tax on the above two counts. The State, it was held, was at liberty to make MYSORE v. WEST COAST' PAPERS;M!Ll:s-.,(Khanna, J,). 1"-9 A · a fresh assessnient of the electricity iax· pay.able by the respondent company "withou.t taking into . account. transmissio~ losses and . ~he quantity of electncal energy used for generat:on ot further electnc.1l energy". The State was also .. directed. to, r~fund the ~xce~s amouat realised by it from the respondent company or Jo adiust 1t towards the electricity tax lawfully due from the .respondent companiy for subsequ1<nt years. The respondent company is manufacturing .paper and other products at Dandeli.

Since the Mysore State E:ectricity Board was not in a position to supply the entire ql!antity of electricity required by the respondent company, th~ company started generating electricity bf installing turbine and other machinery. On June 18, 1966 the ap:< pellants made· a demand of Rs. 3,53,953.45 as arrears of eJectricity tax under the Act from ·the respondent company for the period from July 1959 to March· 1966. 0.n August 29, 1966 the respondent comparzy filed wtit petition challenging the demand notice . on the ground that the demand was illegal and unjus•ified. Before dealing with the respective contentions, it may be pertinent to set ou_t 1 he releva,nt provisions. A State :legislature is ~ompetent' to impose tax on con~umption · or sale of· electricity under· entry 53 of list II of Seven'h Schedu!e to the Constitution. The Mysore legis- . lature has enacted the Act in exercise of the power conferred by the above entry. S~cti<ln 2' of the Act contains definitions.

Clause (1) of that section gives the defiajtion of consumer as under : "(1) "consumer" includes a local ·authority, company or other person to whom energy is· supplied by a licensee on payment of charges or· otherwise, and a licensee or other person who consumes energy generated by himse'.f, but does not . include a liceQ,See to whom energy is supplied by the State Electricity Board for supply to others; and the word "consume" with its grammatical variations shall be construed according! y; Explanation :-Where a licensee to whoin energy is sup. plied by the State E1ectricity Board for supply to others, ·himself consumes a,ny part of the ef'lergy, he shall be deemed to be a consumer in respect of energy so consumed." Section 3 of the Act contains· the charging provision and material part of it at the relevant time read as under : .

"Subject t? the provisions of the Act, there shall be levied and paid to the State Government qn 1he units of , energy ;,consu:n:ed eve.~y month, a tax (hereina(ter referred to as electn~1ty tax ) . calculated at a rate not\ ~xceeding three n~ye pa1se per umt of energy as may, by notification, be specified by the State Government, and different rates may be specified in respect of different classes of consumers"' Section 4 deals with the payment of electricity tax. Sub-sections ( 1) and ( 3) of that section read. as under : " ( 1) Every licen~ee shall . collect and pay to the S•ate Government at .the ume and m the manner pre&cribed the 1C-L251SupCI/75 SUPiU!ME COURT REPORTS [1975] 2 s.c.lt., electricity tJX payable under fois Act on the units of e~rgy supplied by him to consumers. The tax so payable shall be a first charge on the amounts recoverable by the supplier for the energy supplied by him and shall be a debt due by him to the State· Oov.:rnment :

Provided that wh~:re the licensee has been unable to recover the amou,nts du~ to him for the energy supplied by hin1 he shall not b! liable to pay the tax in respect of the energy so supplied. (3) Every persorn, who consumes energy generated by himself, or who supplies energy to any other person free of charge, shall pay, or collect and pay, ~as the case may be, to the State Government, at the time a.nd in the manner prescribed, the electricity tax payable under section 3 on the units of energy consumed by himself or supplied to such other person. It would at this stage k appropriate to advert briefly to the process of genera•ion and distribution of electricity. The process of generation of electricity normally .consists of converting mechanical energy into electrical ·energy through what is known as the "generator". Such mechanical energy is normally supplied by turbine or piston engine.

The motive power· for such turbine or piston engine is supplied by falling water, s'eam, gas, mineral oil or nuclear fuel. Electrical energy so generated is transmitted through me•ru conductors to places where it is to be .used. Some loss of electrical energy takes place in the transmission. Such loss is described as transmission loss. Electricity is transmitted over long· distances at c0m):>aratively high voltage to minimise the ttansmission loss. If electricity is generated at low voltage before transmission,. it is stepped up to relatively high voltage through what is known as "transformer". When electrical energy reaches the place where it is be used, the voltage of electric current is brought down through a transformer before it is put to use. The reason for that is that it is more safe and convenient to . have low voltage at the point of consumption. Some energy is lost in the process of stepping up ~nd stepping down of the voltage through transformers.

Such loss is described as the transformer loss. Ar.cording to the case s<~t up by the respondent company, it was not liable to pay electricity tax on the quantity of electrical energy lost in the course of transmission, i.e., as a result of transmission· or. trans· former loss. It was further the case of the respondent company that some electrical energy was used by it for generation of further electrical energy. The respondent claimed that no electricity tax was payable on the quantity of electrical energy utilised by it for generation of further electrical energy. The High Court, as mentionedearlier, decided on both the points of controversy in favour of the respondent company. In appeal before us Mr. Gupte on behalf of the appellants · has challenged the correctness of the view taken by the High Court on the two points of. controversy. As against that, Mr. Krishnamurthy on MYSORE v. WEST COAST PAPERS MILL'S (Khanna,/,) behalf of the respondent company and Mr. Desai on behalf of the - intervener have canvassed for the .correciness of the view· taken by the High Court.

We have set out ·tiie relevan~ provisions of the Act, and it would appear therefrom that electricity tax is payable on the units of· energy consumed. The . one question with which we are concerned in this appeal is whether electricity tax is payable in respect of the electrical energy which is lost in transmission as a ~esult of transmission loss or transformer loss. So far as this ques$ion .is concerned, we are of the view that no tax is. payable on the electricity so lost. The entire scheme of the Act is to tax the consumption of electrical energy. Where some energy is not consumed but lost before it reac.hes the point of cons·uruption, the question of levy of tax on consumption of such energy would not in the very nature of things arise. The place of consumption of electrical energy is normally at some distance from the place where electrical energy is generated. Electrical energy has consequentlv to be transmitted through metal conductors to the place where. it is consumed.

Such transmission admittedly entails loss of some electrical energy and what is lost can plainly be not available for consumption and as such would not be consumed. If a person, for exarilple, generates 100 units of electrical energy and loses 10 units in the process of transmission from the point of generation to the point of coniumption, he would in the very nature of things be able to supply only 90 units of eiectrital energy to the consumers. The tax which would be payable on the electrical energy consumed in such a case would be only for 90 units and not 100 units. To hold othl'TWise and to realise tax on 100 units of electrical energy would be tantamount to levying tax on the generation or production of electrical energy and not on its . consumption. Such a tax on the generation or .production of electrical energy is plainly not permissible under. the Act.

The fact that the consumer happens in the present case to be the same company which generated the electrical eneriy would, in our opinion, make no material difference. A similar question arose before a Division Bench of the Mysore High Court in Gokak Mills Ltd. v. State of Mysore( 1). The Division Bench, while holding that no tax is payable in respect of the energy lost between the point of generation and the point of consumption, observed as under : "In the case before us, the company occupies both the role of a supplier and a consumer .. It is a supplier when it generates electricity and supplies it for its own purposes to be consumed by it after it reaches the point of consumption.

The supply which it makes from the point of generation after it is .generated, to the point of consumption where it is received by it for purposes of consumption, is transmitted by the company not in the role of a consumer but in the· role of a supplier, and, if during the process of transmission which is made by the company in the role of a supplier some part of the energy :is lost-and we are informed that such loss iS' in- (1) (1969) 2 Mysore Law Journal 99. [1975) 2 s.c,R. evitable-it would not, in our opinion, be correcUo say that that energy which is so lost is energy consumed by the company which generated it." The above observations, in our opinion, represent the correct position in law. It may be stated that the High Court declined to grant a certificate of fitness for appeal to the State of Mysore in the above case. The State thereupon sought special leave of this Court to appeal against . B the judgment of the High Court but its application was rejected.

It is not necessary to express opinion on the legal position in a case where a person receives supply, in bulk, of energy from a licensee and while transmitting or transforming or distributing the same within his area, suffers losses as such a question does not arise in the present case. We are. however, unable to agree with the High Court that no electricity tax is payable ·by the respondent company in respect of the electrical energy used by it for generating further electrical energy. Electrical energy can be consumed for a variety of purposes. The fact that such energy has been used not for manufacturing some other article but for generating further electricity would not go to show that such energy has n.ot been consumed. What we are actually concerned wit!t und~r the Act is the consumption of electrical energy.

The use ·of electr1cat energy vvould none the less be consumption of such energy even though it has bi~en consumed in operating the apparatus· for generating further ele:ctrical energy. . The purposes for which the energy has been consumed would not make any material difference for the purposes of the levy of tax under the Act. It is not disputed on behalf of the respondent company that if it h.ad used electrical energy generated by the State Electricity· Board for generating further electrical energy, the use of such energy generated by the Board would have attracted the provisions of the Act for liability to pay electricity tax. It would, in our opinion, make no difference that the electrical energy useli by the respondent co~pany for generating further electric:al energy was that which had been generated by itself. Sub-section ( 3) of section 4 reproduced above makes it clear that electricity tax would be payable if a person consumes elcc-· trical energy generated by himself.

The sub-section thus puts the consumption ·.Of energy generated by the consumer himself at par with the consumption of energy generated by sOJpeone else. The definition of the word "consumer" also shows that 1t would include a person who consumr.s energy generated by Himself. The proposition that in . G the ·matter of the levy of electricity tax the court should differentiate between cases wherein the 1energy COD$umed .has been generated by someone other than the consumer and those wherein such energy has . been ~enerated by the consumer himself cannot, therefore, be countenanced. We. therefore, partially accept the apl)eal an~ hold that electricity tax under the Act is payable in respect of electri~ energy· consumed for izenerating further electricity. No such tax !8• howey:er, payable in respect of electrical energy lost as a result ·of transmission loss and MYSORE V. WEST COAST PAPERS MILLS (Beg, /.) transformer loss. The judgment of the High Court is modified accordingiy.

The parties in the circumstances are left to bear their own costs throughout. BEG, J.-1 have had the advantage of going through the opinion of my learned Brother Khanna with which my learned Brother Iyer concurs. I entirely agree with my learned Brother's observations : '',What we are.. actually concerned with under the Act is the consumption of electricity. The .purposes for which electricity has been consumed would not make any materi•.tl difference for the purpose of levy of tax under the Act". I also agree that sub. s. (3) ·of Section 4 of the Act makes it clear that tax would be payable even if a person consumes electrical energy generated by himself. The sub-section equates the consumption of energy generated by the consumer him- . self with the consumption of energy generated by someone else. The definition of the word 'consumer' also shows that it would .include all persons who consume energy generated ·by themselves.

It seems to me, with great r.:spect, that all this reasoning adopted by my learned Brother applies with equal force to electricity which may be con8umed in the process of transmission or transformatio~ of electricity generated so that it may be consumed at points at which or in a form in which it may be possible to use it for one who wants to utilise elec~ tricity for a particular manufacturing process. With great respect, I _f!).il to see· the distinction, in principle, between consumption of electricity for generation and what has been •called "loss" of electricity in the course of its transmission and transformation. The Electricity Act, with which we are concerned, makes no distim;tion between a use for generation, a use for transmission or supply, and a use for transformation. Transmission seems to me a process district from generation. It may be covered. by the heading of "supply" or "distribution".

Transformation is akin to generation in as much as it results in the conversion of electrical power of a certain voltage into one of a higher or lower voltage.· It is part of the process which makes e~ectricity more suitable for use for one of the several purposes or even the main purpose of a generator of electricity.· The generation is also for the same purpose as are tnimmission· ani transformatlon of electrical energy into power of nMr:inriate voltage, Therefore. if electricitv used uo in generation is taxable as consumption, it sl1ould. Jo¢cally speaking. follow that electric.ity used up for transmission and transformation is also consumption even though it may be described as a "Joss" which seems !O me t<i be a rather misleading term invented by those engaged m supplying electricity. Tiie problem before us is one of statutory construction which appears to me to be capable of solution by applying certain well-kno~n rules of interpretation.

The relevant provisions have been set out 1Il '.:';JPREME COURT REPORTS [1975] 2 s,c.R. the judgment of my learned Brother Khanna so that I need not repeat . them. I will only refer to them in explaining them. Section 2, cl. (I) seems to have three objects in view. Firstly, it makes. it clear that the word "consumer" does not exclude but "h1- cludes" authorities and persons, both natural and artificial, to whom energy may be supplied, either gratis or on payment of a charge, as also one w'ho generates energy as well as consumes it. Secondly, it excludes "a licensee to whom energy is supplied by the State Electricity Board for the purposes of supply to other". Every supplier of electricity is not excludetl. It only excludes an intermediate supplier "licencetl by the Electricity Board for purposes of supply to others". Such an intermediate supplier is thus placed :1a an exempted cat.:gory because his. use of electricity is apparently on behalf of the State Electricity Board.

Other suppliers of Electricity would not be excluded from the definition of "consumer" if they undertake the service or supply without being lice:nced to do so by the State Electricity Board. Furthermore, the explanation makes it clear that any consumption cf energy, even by a licenced supplier, would be covered by consumption for purposes of taxation. Thhldly, the definition itself contains the explanation that the wo1rd "consumed" shall, for all purposes not specially mentionecl, be interpreted "with its grammatical variation". This means that we are referred to the ordinary dictionary meanings of the word "consumers" for its variants all of which are covered. The Shorter Oxford English Dic:ionary (Third Edition-Vol. I) contains the following meanings of "Consume" : (I) "To make away .with, destroy, as .by fire, evaporation, 'decompositio!l, disease, or the like; (2) to waste, squander; (3) to use up, esp. to eat up, drink up;

( 4) · to take up, spend, wa!ite", Some additional connotations of it will he found in Webster's Third International Dictionary. But, the meanings given above ar•e primary and uniform. They are necessarily included in the variations expressly covered ·by the statutory definition of it in Sec. 2(1). It seems clear to me that no distinction is made anywhere in the Act between consumption for different purposes, such as generation, transmission; transformation or utilisation of electricity for any other purpose. One who genera~ electricity and then transmits and transforms it before utilising it for another purpose may .be said to be generating it for several purposes. Spending up or utilisation of energy for each of the purposes,, whether •it be generation, or, .transmission, or, transformation, or, manufacture of some particular · com111odity, can be said to be a use which must necessarily fall within the orilinary uammatical or dictionary m1mnine; of the word consumption.

So lone as energy is spent or used up, whatever be the process or purpose of such using up, it will be consumption. Speaking for myself, I fu1d it imoossible to reject the ar1?Ument of Mr. Gupte, tillat, hnmediately after the ooint of generation, begins the process of QOnsumotion whether the elecllicity, or, to use tbe term employed in the definition, "cmergy" is used up or IO'lt in transmission MYSORE v. WE'ST COAST PAPERS MILLS (Beg, /.) or · trans~ormation or manufacture. The use of energy or electricity is necessanly a process of using up or destroying it in the course of such use. The mere fact that it is called "transmission loss" or "transformation loss", would, in my opinion, make no difference whatsoever to !he result. ln each c~se, the result is consumption.

The process is, rn each case, one which entails consumption whatever be its object. lt seems to me that the definition discussed above does not certain any exemption for any use of electricity for any particular purpose except possibly where a licensee is said to be transmitting it on behalf or the State Electricity Board. Such a licensee can charge or collect, under Section 4(1) and (3) of the Act, the tax on what he supplies. This necessarily implies a deduction, so far as those to whom energy is supplied are concerned, of the quantity of energy lost or used up in the process of supplying from the total quantity consumtti after it is generated. It may be possible to contend that such a licensee supplier comes within the class excluded from the definition of "consumer" given in Section 2. cl.

( 1) of the Act, although perhaps the J;:xplanation to the provision would bring in even an intermediate licensee consumer withfn the net of taxation when his consumption or use of energy is for the purposes of transmission. The deduction of . the quantity ccinsumed in providing the service of supplying, it could be argued, is meant only to .exclude the collection of tax upon it from the ultimate consumers. However, as . no case of such a licensee is before us, it is quite unnecessary fo1 us to consider his hypothetical case. I mention it only for the purpose of showing that the character in which the _activity of consumption is carri,1J on is only relevant for the purposes of exclusion from the definition of "consumer" when we have "a licensee to whom energy is supplied by the Electricity Board! for supplv to others". In every other case, the character of a supplier or generator is not rejevant at all in d'ciding whether he is also a consumer.

In all other cases, the only question to be determined is : Does he consume energy : The only character or. capa<;ity which is relevant for purposes or taxation, if character is relevant at all, is that of a consumer. In my opin:on, the consumption begins immediately after electricity can be said to be generated. We understand that it is on such an interpretation of the Act that the meter is installed at the point of supply by the Company to itself of the electricity genera~­ ea by it. It seems to me be quite immaterial whether the energy IS consumed in transmission or transformation or a particular manufac• G ·. turing process. It is, nevertheless, energy consumed. It is, so far as thedefinition goes, on par with electricity consumed for purposes of II · generation. In order to meet what appears to me to have been correctly put forword by Mr. Guote as the ordinary meaning of "consumer", subject to the qualification in the definiiion given in Sec. 2, cl.

(1) of ~e Act, learned counsel for the Respondents tried to rely upon the view adopted by the Madras High Court that transmission and transformation must be construed as substantial parts of the process of generation. Even if we were to accept . such an argument for which no [l 975] 2 s.c.R •. ground, justifiable from :a technical point of view, has been put forward before us, l thmk that, upon the view adopted by my learned Brother Khanna with regard to taxation of ·energy consumed on generation, what is consumed for transmission and transformation of the energy would also be taxable because that would then be energy used up in the process of generation. But, as I have said above, ) do not ~ml . · any acceptable basis for such a concept of fie process of generation which wa> used by the Karnataka High Court in the judgment under appeal before .us.

Another contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the Respondents before us was that "effective" consumption must be deemed to begin only after a transmission and transfonnation o1 energy so that it is put in a consumable form. This contention rests upon a division of commmption into effective consumption and noneffective consumption. I do not find any warrant in the relevant provisions of the Act for such a distinction fer two kinds of consumption. To introduce it would imply introlduction of words which are not there in the stat\ltory prov:ision. Such a method of construction or int~­ pretation. is not pennissibl~ except under the compelling necessity to avoid an absurdity which does not seem to be present here at all. Lastly, learned Counsel for the respondents had tried to argue that the Act imposed a. tax u;xm a person in his "character'" as a consumer and not in bis character as a generator.

As already indicatdJ above, such a distinction is base,d on the supposedly different characters of consumption seems to me to be quite misleading. The confusion and difficulties to which such a distinction can give. rise an:i the time it took to clear them up in another field of taxation, where . the question was whether expenditure in a particular character is a permissible deduction, under Section 10(XV) of the Indian Incometax Act may be gathered from what this Court said in Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. the CJ.T. West Bengal Calcutta.(1) It may be that the electricity tax is imposed upon a person 01,1ly in the character or capa-city of a consumer.

It does not follow from this that the character or capacity of a consumer only begins when energy is used up for a particular purpose in which a consumer is a consumer. · If he consumes it is evident that· the character of a .consumer attaches to him. even if he is a generator _or .producer of energy, He has then a dun! characrer wh<:n he consumes and also ~nerates. What the Act does is si~ply to t~x the usinj.! up of enerl!v by a person whatever be the capa~1ty !n which the use .may have ~een made,, It is· really a tax on usmg up and not on use 1n any particular character or manner. This seems to me to be the clear imoort of words to be construed. These have, ordinarily to be given their full effect. · ·Although the arguments of the respondents mentionel.i above seem to ~ave found complete acceptance in the High Court, I find !DYself, with due respect, u~able to accede; to them. Logically speakmg,_ I find· no way of escapmg the conclus1on lhat a tax im?osed on {I) 84 J;f.R:.

73S 0 MYSORE V. WEST COAST PAPERS MILLS (Beg, /,) consumption cannot be avoided eveit when the consumer uses up energy· either in generating or producing it or transmitting it or transforming it before utilising it for some manufacturing process. It is consumption that is taxed. I, therefore, regret my inability to accept the conclilsions of my learned Brother Khanna . on taxation of energy used up in its transmission . or transformation before its use for a manufacturing purpose. In my opii;iion, the appeal befote us must be allowed wholly with costs. ORDER In view of the decision of the majority, the appeal is allowed in part and the judgment of the High Court modified. The parties are left to. bear their own costs throughOIJ.~. V.M.K.