Judgement BHASKARAN NAMBIAR, J. :- The demand made under the Kerala Electricity (Duty) Act, 1963 (for short, "the Act"), is challenged in all these writ petitions. The questions raised are common and the facts stated are similar. We shall, therefore, refer to the necessary facts and the relevant exhibits in O.P. No. 9889 of 1986 for the purpose of this judgement. 2. The petitioner in O.P. No. 9889 of 1986 is Carborundum Universal Limited, a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, having its registered office at Madras and several manufacturing units, a brown aluminium plant, a silicon carbide plant, electrocast refractory and white aluminium oxide plant in Kerala. Poised precariously, with sharp fall in the storage level of hydel reservoirs in this State and faced with an acute shortage in the supply of electrical energy, the State Government, in 1983 issued orders to regulate the supply of electricity to ensure equitable distribution. The Company was allowed to draw only 40% of their requirements. Steps were taken to import energy from the neighbouring States. When imported power was thus made available allotment to consumers was made under special orders. On 19-7-1983, the Government requested the Kerala State Electricity Board to give the petitioner an additional quantum for August, 1983, from the imported power subject to availability and subject to the conditions that the total quantum of including the existing supply of 40% did not exceed 70%. There was a further condition that this additional supply shall be subject to their agreeing to pay an extra charge of 35 paise per unit for the imported power. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner Company gave a written undertaking "to pay an extra charge of 35 paise per unit of electrical energy supplied to the Company over and above the present tariff rate applicable for the current charges towards the additional power sanctioned by the Kerala Government". It was also specified therein that the extra rate will be applicable only to the units consumed in excess of the normal quota allotted from time to time. 4. The petitioner has thus obtained additional power from the imported quota and paid an extra charge of 35 paise per unit as stipulated. The Company was thus benefited to this extent. In the Invoice issued to them in August, 1983, "extra charges for imported quantity of 105625 units at 35 paise per unit amounting to Rs. 36,968.75 were demanded. 4. The petitioner has thus obtained additional power from the imported quota and paid an extra charge of 35 paise per unit as stipulated. The Company was thus benefited to this extent. In the Invoice issued to them in August, 1983, "extra charges for imported quantity of 105625 units at 35 paise per unit amounting to Rs. 36,968.75 were demanded. The Invoice did not show the duty on this extra energy supplied. However, in December, 1986, on 30-12-86, the petitioner received the bill, Ext. P3, in which the Company was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 88,705.30 towards duty omitted to be charged on the imported power during August, 1983 to October, 1983. The petitioner challenges this demand. This demand, Ext. P3, also stated that if payment was not made on or before 5-1-1987 the supply would be discontinued without notice. The petitioner challenges this bill. 5. The contention advanced before us is that the Company is not liable to pay the electricity duty under the Act, as the additional imported energy supplied to the Company attracted only the extra charges and not the duty. It is their case that the extra charge included the duty and that was how the Government, the Board and the Company proceeded, as no action was taken for over 3 years to collect the duty. It was contended that the liability to pay the duty arose only when the amount was included in the invoice for the current consumption of charges for each month by the Board and the Board was bound to collect and remit the same to the Treasury before the expiry of the following month. It was thus contended that when under the Act and the Rule, the demand for August to December, 1983 should have been made only in those months and not in December, 1986, after three years, there was no liability to pay the duty. 6. Section 3 of the Act levies electricity duty on certain sales of energy by licencees and Section 4 of the Act provides for levy of electricity duty on consumers. Section 4 reads thus :- "4. Levy of Electricity Duty on consumers. 6. Section 3 of the Act levies electricity duty on certain sales of energy by licencees and Section 4 of the Act provides for levy of electricity duty on consumers. Section 4 reads thus :- "4. Levy of Electricity Duty on consumers. - Every consumer belonging to any of the classes specified in column (2) of the Schedule shall pay every month to the Government in the prescribed manner a duty calculated at the rate specified against that class in column (3) thereof : Provided that in cases where the supply of energy to a consumer is regulated by an agreement entered into between the Government or the licencee and the consumer it shall be competent for Government either to reduce the rate at which duty is leviable on such consumer or to exempt such consumer from payment of duty under this Section subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Government". Collection and payment of electricity duty levied on consumers are provided for in Section 5, which reads thus :- "5. Collection and payment of electricity duty levied on consumers. - (1) Every licencee shall collect and pay to the Government at the time and in the manner prescribed, the electricity duty payable under Section 4 of this Act on the units of energy consumed by every consumer to whom energy is supplied by him. The duty so payable shall be a first charge on the amounts recoverable by the licencee for the energy consumed, and shall be a debt due by him to the Government. (2) When any consumer fails or neglects to pay at the time and in the manner prescribed the amount of electricity duty due from him the licencee may, without prejudice to the right of the Government to recover the amount under Section 8, after giving not less than seven clear days' notice in writing to such consumer, cut off supply of energy to such consumer; and he may, for that purpose, exercise the power conferred on a licencee by Sub-Section (1) of Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, for the recovery of any charge or sum due in respect of energy supplied by him." Recovery of duty is made under Section 8, which reads thus :- "8. Recoveries. Recoveries. - Any sum due on account of electricity duty, if not paid at the time and in the manner prescribed, shall be deemed to be in arrears, and thereupon such interest not exceeding twelve per cent per annum which the Government may by general or special order fix, shall be payable on such sum; and the sum, together with any interest thereon, shall be recoverable either through a civil court or as an arrear of land revenue - (i) if the amount was payable under Section 3, from the licencee ; (ii) if the sum was payable under Sub-Section (1) of Section 5, either from the consumer or from the licencee , at the option of the government; and (iii) if the sum was payable by a person who consumed energy generated by himself, from such person." Rule 3 providing the time and manner of collection of duty reads thus :- "3. Time and manner of payment. - Every licencee shall pay the duty payable under Section 3 of the Act in respect of a month before the expiry of the following month. The duty shall be paid into a Government Treasury to the credit of the Government under the appropriate detailed head under XIII B. Electricity duties (b) taxes and duties on Electricity (i) Electricity duties and the Treasury chalan receipt sent to the Inspecting Officer. (2) The duty payable by every consumer under Section 4 of the Act shall be included separately in the invoice for current consumption charges for each month issued by the licencee to the consumer and collected from the consumer. The licencee shall also send every month separate invoices for duty in respect of consumers who, within his area of supply generate energy for their own consumption and collect the same from such consumers. In the case of licencee s consuming energy for themselves separate accounts shall be maintained for such consumption. The duty collect from the consumers by the licencee s together with the duty payable for such energy consumed by them shall be remitted by them into a Government Treasury, before the expiry of the following month under the head mentioned in sub-rule (1) retaining 1 per cent of the duty collected from the consumers by the licencee as collection charged and the Treasury chalan receipt sent to the Inspecting Officer. Provided that no collection charges shall be retained in respect of duty payable by the licencee s for the energy consumed by themselves. Provided that a licencee who consents to remit the duty under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act on the basis of assessed demand shall be allowed to remit the amount of the duty' according to the assessed demand for a particular month before the expiry of the second succeeding month." 7. Under Section 4 of the Act, electricity duty is imposed on all consumers specified in column (2) of the schedule to the Act, calculated at the rate specified against that class in column (3) thereof. Under item 4(b) of the Schedule "Consumers taking supply of energy at 11 KV and above", have to pay duty at the rate of "20 per cent of the price of energy indicated in the Invoice". Section 4 is the charging Section imposing duty on consumers of electric energy. The class of consumers Liable to duty and the rate of duty are both specified in the Schedule to the Act. The rate thus fixed by the Ad is on the price of energy shown in the Invoice. When once the Invoice mentions the price of energy, the duty can be calculated at the rate prescribed in the Schedule itself. 8. It is not disputed that the petitioner is a consumer taking supply of energy at 11 KV. The price of energy is indicated in the invoice given to him in August, 1983 and subsequent months. Therefore, from a reading of Section 4 along with Schedule to the Act, it is clear that the petitioner was liable to pay duty on the price of energy indicated in the Invoice issued in August to December, 1983. There can thus be no dispute that the Company was liable to pay duty at 20% of the price of energy noted in the Invoices issued in August to December, 1983. The contention that the company was not liable to pay duty has only to be rejected. 9. The second contention that was urged was that the extra charge demanded and paid included the duty. The Government Order, Ext. P1 and the undertaking of the company, P2, do not show that the extra charge included the statutory duty. The contention that the company was not liable to pay duty has only to be rejected. 9. The second contention that was urged was that the extra charge demanded and paid included the duty. The Government Order, Ext. P1 and the undertaking of the company, P2, do not show that the extra charge included the statutory duty. In fact, the Government Order and the undertaking of the company do not mention about the duty at all. The duty is a statutory levy on the price of energy invoiced. The fixation of an extra price for energy does not absolve the statutory liability to pay duty. 10. It was next contended that the fixation of extra charge indicated that there was exemption from duty. The Government have not issued any exemption in favour of the petitioner. The power to exempt can be exercised under Section 11 by a notification in the Gazette. There was no notification in favour of the petitioners. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioners are not entitled to any exemption from payment of duty. 11. The claim for exemption was based on the proviso to Section 4 also. The contention was that when energy is supplied on the strength of any particular agreement, the proviso statutorily exempted the payment of duty. We cannot agree. The proviso only states that when the supply of energy to any consumer is regulated by an agreement, it is competent for the Government to reduce the rate of duty or exempt the consumer from payment of duty. The proviso, therefore contemplates a separate order being passed by the Government for claiming any exemption. There is no such order in this case and this contention has also to be rejected. 12. Next it was contended that the fact no attempt to collect duty was made for about 3 years, clearly proved that it was accepted by all that duty was not leviable on the price of the extra energy. The lapse or delay on the part of the Board to collect the duty from the petitioner Company cannot be construed as a statutory exemption from the obligations to pay the duty. The Board is only an agent of the State to collect the prescribed duty from the consumer. The delay of the agent do not affect the principal's right to collect the duty. The Board is only an agent of the State to collect the prescribed duty from the consumer. The delay of the agent do not affect the principal's right to collect the duty. The right of the Government to demand and collect duty is not lost on account of any negligence or delay on the part of the licencee , the Board. An exemption from duty payable under the Act cannot be a matter of inference or presumption by conduct when the Act prescribes the procedure for grant of exemption and insists on a specific order the notified in the Gazette in that behalf. 13. The other contention was that the liability to pay duty arose only when the Board followed the procedure prescribed under rule 4. The levy could only be "in the manner prescribed" and in no other manner and therefore when, in this case, the rule was not rigidly followed, there was no liability to pay duty. Our attention was specifically drawn to the expression "in the prescribed manner" occurring in Sections 4, 5 and 8 of the Act. 14. The liability to pay duty does not arise under the rules, but under the Act. The levy of duty is on the licencee , the Board, under Section 3 and the levy of duty on the consumers is under Section 4 of the Act. They are the charging Sections. The Act classifies the consumers liable to pay duty and fixes the rate of duty in the schedule to the Act itself. As the duty is payable to the Government, the Act enables the Board to collect the duty and remit it to the Treasury. Section 5 of the Act achieves this purpose and constitutes the Board, the licencee , to collect the duty from the consumers. It is this Board that has to follow the prescribed manner for collecting the duty. The manner is provided in rule 3. Any mistake committed by the licencee , the Board, in the manner of collection or any delay in collecting the duty cannot absolve the consumer from its statutory obligations to pay the duty charged under the Act. The fact that the licencee , the Board, did not include the duty payable by the consumer in the Invoices issued in April to December, 1983 will not absolve the petitioner of its statutory liability to pay duty. 15. The fact that the licencee , the Board, did not include the duty payable by the consumer in the Invoices issued in April to December, 1983 will not absolve the petitioner of its statutory liability to pay duty. 15. We are also in agreement with the contention of the counsel for the Board that rule 3 is not mandatory and is only directory in nature. Violation of rule 3 does not annul the statutory liability of duty. Rule 3 prescribes the procedure for the time and manner of payment of duty. The duty imposed on the licencee , the Board, under Section 3 of the Act is payable "in respect of a month before the expiry of the following month". Similarly the duty payable by the consumer has to be included separately in the Invoice issued by the Board for each month showing the current consumption of charges and the duty payable shall be remitted before the expiry of the following month. If the duty is not paid as provided in rule 3, recovery of duty can be made under rule 4 when there is a default for a consecutive period of three months. If it was mandatory, the right to collect could not have been postponed after three defaults. The rule itself gives sufficient indication that it was not intended to be mandatory. Any other interpretation would not only defeat the very intent and object of the provisions, but will lead to absurd results, for, the consumer can always contend that a delay of one day in the issue of Invoice was sufficient to avoid payment of duty. This contention has therefore only to be rejected. 16. The last contention urged was that the Board is now collecting duty omitted to be collected. They are collecting duty which "escaped assessment" and unless there is provision for reopening the assessment already made, the Board did not have jurisdiction to make any demand now. It is true that in taxing statutes where there are detailed provisions for assessment, there are express provisions providing for reopening of assessments. In the present case, under this Act, there is no provision for making any assessment order. The rate of duty is on the price of energy shown in the Invoices. When once the Invoice shows the price, arithmetical calculation alone is required to fix the duty. In the present case, under this Act, there is no provision for making any assessment order. The rate of duty is on the price of energy shown in the Invoices. When once the Invoice shows the price, arithmetical calculation alone is required to fix the duty. Therefore, the Act did not provide for any elaborate process of issuance of any pre-assessment notice or the making of a formal assessment order. The quantity of energy consumed and the price of that energy being ascertained and included in the Invoice, there is no functionary constituted by the Ad to pass any orders of assessment. When there is no assessment order, no question of reopening any assessment order arises. If, therefore, the duty is mistakenly omitted to be collected, when the mistake comes to the notice of the Board and the Board rectifies the mistake and proposes to collect duty, there is no reopening of assessment under this Act. In this view, there is no necessity for any provision in the Act for reopening of any assessment and the contention that demand now made is without jurisdiction cannot be accepted. 17. It was then contended that the Board got no power to collect tax after the expiry of four years when the duty should have been specified in the Invoices in August to December, 1983. We have not been shown any provision under which the claim is barred The Government have got the power to collect the arrears of duty under Section 8 of the Act itself. The Board, as already stated, is only the agent acting on behalf of the State to collect the duty payable to the State. The fact that the Board has realised their mistake only now and issued the bills after about three years, does not affect the right of the Government to realise the arrears of duty from the consumers and thus does not affect the power of the Board to issue Invoices and claim the amount. There is thus no merit in the contentions of the petitioners and these Original Petitions are therefore dismissed, but, without any order as to costs. 18. While the Original Petitions were pending, interim stay was granted on condition that the petitioners pay 50% of the duty demanded. Stay has continued and the balance duty is now payable. Coercive steps under the Act and the rules can be taken. 18. While the Original Petitions were pending, interim stay was granted on condition that the petitioners pay 50% of the duty demanded. Stay has continued and the balance duty is now payable. Coercive steps under the Act and the rules can be taken. To avoid hardship, we direct that the petitioners are given fifteen days time from today to pay the arrears of electricity duty for the period August to December, 1983. If the amount is not paid within this time, the Board will be at liberty to take appropriate steps for the realisation of the duty claimed. 19. MALIMATH, C.J. :- As we are not satisfied that any substantial question of law of general importance which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court arises in these cases, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court prayed for is refused. Petitions dismissed.