Rohtak and Hissar District Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Board, Sultanpur UP
1970-04-23
H.C.P.TRIPATHI
body1970
DigiLaw.ai
ORDER H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - Petitioner is an Electric Supply Co. which carries on the business of distributing electricity within the Municipal limits of Sultanpur, that under Notification No. 2365-XXIII-186-23, dated 7-5-1917, the Respondent Municipal Board published the rules in pursuance of Section 128 of the UP Municipalities Act for the imposition of tax on certain trades, vocations or callings. The Respondent Board issued notices to the Petitioner proposing to levy a tax of Rs. 400/- for each year on the Petitioner for years 1959 60,1960-61,1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64, inviting objections, if any, against the said proposals. Petitioner objected to the assessment of the proposed tax on the ground that "the only trade carried on by the Petitioner within the limits of Sultanpur is that of "distribution of electricity" which is not taxable. Respondent Board rejected the Petitioner's objection and finally assessed on him a sum of Rs. 400/- as tax for each of the five years. Petitioner's appeal u/s 160 of the UP Municipalities Act was dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate (Judl.) on 30-6-65. 2. By this petition the Petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari for quashing the demand notice dated 7-3-64, issued by the Municipal Board demanding a sum of Rs. 4000/- from him as a trade tax. 3. Mr. B.G. Dey, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has argued that, although the Petitioner company is carrying on the business of supplying electricity on payment for making profits within the Municipal limits of Sultanpur it is not one of the taxable trades within the meaning of the rules framed by the Municipal Board for the imposition of tax on trades and callings. Learned Counsel contends that the electrical energy which is being distributed by the Petitioner company is not an article of lighting within the meaning of item No. 3 of the Schedule, headed by taxable trade or dealings as published in the notification referred to above. I find no substance in this argument. 4. Item No. 3 of the taxable trade or dealings as mentioned in the modification of 7-5-1917 reads, Dealers in ghee, oil seeds and other articles of fuel, lighting, washing and wearing, e.g. Churis etc. 5. In terms, therefore, item No. 3 makes dealers in lighting assessable to tax.
I find no substance in this argument. 4. Item No. 3 of the taxable trade or dealings as mentioned in the modification of 7-5-1917 reads, Dealers in ghee, oil seeds and other articles of fuel, lighting, washing and wearing, e.g. Churis etc. 5. In terms, therefore, item No. 3 makes dealers in lighting assessable to tax. Admittedly the Petitioner company is a dealer in electrical energy which is used in lighting and as such is assessable to tax under this item. 6. Learned Counsel contends that the word 'lighting' falling in this item is qualified by the word 'articles' and as the electrical energy is not an article, this item is not applicable. Firstly this argument is not correct because if the word 'articles' was to qualify the word 'lighting' also, then there would not have been a coma after the word 'fuel' and instead it have been joined by the conjective word 'and'. Even if it is assumsed that the word 'articles' qualifies to word 'lighting' there is no reason to hold that the electricial energy is not an article. 7. Electricial energy can be perceived and felt in its various manifestations and as such it is an article, though not in a tangible form. That being so, I am not prepared to hold that the business which is carried on by the Petitioner in distributing electrical energy for lighting and other alied purposes within the Municipal limits of Sultanpur for making gains is not one of the taxable trades or dealing within the meaning of item No. 3 of the schedule. 8. It is inconceivable to hold that persons dealing in light, oil seeds and other articles of fuel are carrying on taxable trade but not the Petitioner company which is dealing on a mass scale in the distribution of electrical energy for the personal gain. 9. There is no force in this petition and it is dismissed with costs.