Judgment :- Petitioner is a Government company engaged in the business of shipbuilding and ship repairing. For the purpose of its business, it obtains supply of electricity from the Kerala State Electricity Board. Part of the supply s used by the petitioner for its own purposes, and part of the supply is sold by it, to its officers, contractors and others, for consumption. The petitioner is accordingly a "sanction ee" as under S.28 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. 2. The Kerala Electricity Duty Act, 23 of 1963 (the Act) provides for the levy of electricity duty on licensees and consumers. A licensee is defined in S.2(d) of the Act as meaning, inter alia, the Kerala State Electricity Board (the Board, for short) as also any person licensed under Part II of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 to supply energy, including any person who is deemed to have been so licensed, and any other person who has obtained the sanction of the Government under S.28 of the said Act. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a licensee as defined in S.2(d) of the Act, being a sanction ee under S.28 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. 3. S.3 of the Act provides for levy of electricity duty on sales of energy by licensees (other than sales by the Board to another licensee). S.4 provides for levy of duty on certain consumers described in the schedule. I shall extract these provisions for reference: "3. Levy of Electricity Duty on certain sales of energy by licensees. (1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2) every licensee in the State of Kerala shall pay every month to the Government in the prescribed manner, a duty calculated at 6 naye Paise per unit of energy sold at a price of more than 12 naye Paise per unit. Provided that no duty under this sub-section shall be payable by the Kerala State Electricity board on the energy sold by it to another licensee. (2) Where a licensee hold more than one licence, duty shall be calculated and levied under this section separately in respect of each licence. (3) The duty under this section on the sales of energy should be borne by the licensee and shall not be passed on to the consumer. 4. Levy of Electricity Duty on consumers. (2) Where a licensee hold more than one licence, duty shall be calculated and levied under this section separately in respect of each licence. (3) The duty under this section on the sales of energy should be borne by the licensee and shall not be passed on to the consumer. 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 licensee and the consumer it shall be competent for the 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". The petitioner is paying the electricity duty due from it as a consumer, under S. 4, in respect of the electricity consumed by it, at the rates specified in the schedule to the Act. The petitioner also pays electricity duty under S. 3 on the sales of energy made by it to its officers, contractors and others, the petitioner being treated as a lincensee for the purpose. The petitioner does not dispute its liability for either of these levies. But it disputes the demand for duty made on it under S.3, on the electricity consumed by itself. , 4. By the proceedings Ext. P1, Government called upon the petitioner to remit electricity duty under S.3 of the Act "for self consumption" i.e. for duty on energy consumed by it for its own purposes. The petitioner objected to the demand by the reply Ext. P2 pointing out that duty is payable under S.3 only on energy sold, and not on energy consumed by the licensees themselves. Government refuted the contention by the reply Ext. P3. It was pointed out that the petitioner "will be treated as a licensee selling energy to the contractors and other consumers in the premises". The letter EXT. P4 followed this from the Chief Electrical Inspector calling upon the petitioner to remit the duty under S.3 for the "self consumption". The petitioner demurred by their objections Ext. P3. It was pointed out that the petitioner "will be treated as a licensee selling energy to the contractors and other consumers in the premises". The letter EXT. P4 followed this from the Chief Electrical Inspector calling upon the petitioner to remit the duty under S.3 for the "self consumption". The petitioner demurred by their objections Ext. P5 to the Chief Electrical Inspector pointing out that no duty was chargeable in respect of self-consumed energy. The Chief Electrical Inspector however, reiterated his stand in Ext. P4 and informed the petitioner by his proceedings Ext. P6 that when a licensee consumed energy generated or supplied to him by the Board, he will be deemed to be a consumer in respect of the energy so consumed, "except in respect of energy consumed by him for purposes connected with the construction, maintenance and operation of the generating, transmitting and distributing system". The petitioner was therefore called upon to make payment of the electricity duty for self-consumption also with penal interest at 12% for the period upto May 18,1978 and at 18% thereafter. Petitioner challenges this demand for payment of duty on electricity, supplied to it by the Board, and consumed by it for its own purposes. 5. The petitioner's contention is that the charge under S.3 is only on electricity sold by the licensee. When the energy is consumed by themselves, there is no sale involved, and therefore the charge under S.3 is not attracted. The first respondent Government states however, that this levy on own consumption is required to avoid possible revenue loss to Government. The proviso to S.3 exempts the Board from paying duty on the energy sold by them to another licensee. Therefore, and since the petitioner was a licensee as defined in S.2(d), the Board itself was not liable to pay any duty on the supply to the petitioner. If the petitioner was also not chargeable for duty, the entire supply will escape payment of duty. There will be revenue loss, and therefore petitioner should be made liable. 6. I am unable to understand the logic of the government's contention. I wonder how revenue loss could be posited without seeing whether any charge at all has been created by the statute. There will be revenue loss, and therefore petitioner should be made liable. 6. I am unable to understand the logic of the government's contention. I wonder how revenue loss could be posited without seeing whether any charge at all has been created by the statute. The loss of revenue (if it could be termed so), is caused, if at all, only by the statutory provisions, namely the exemption granted to the Board and the charge being limited to sales of energy because of the legislative entry in the Constitution. One cannot assume a revenue loss and then go round collecting the duty on that basis from whomsoever you can lay hands on without reference to the statute. If S.3 does not authorise collection of duty from a consumer like the petitioner in respect of its own consumption, Government cannot, in the guise of revenue loss, attempt to collect any duty from it, because it is not possible to collect the duty from anyone else. It is well established that a subject is not to be taxed unless the charging provision clearly implies the obligation. In a taxing statute, one has merely to look at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. Nothing is to be read in and nothing is to be implied (Commissioner of Income Tax v. A/ax Products, AIR 1965 S.C.1358 and Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioners (1921) 1 K.B. 64). The question to be considered therefore is whether S.3 warrants such a levy. 7. The Act is one enacted under Entry 53 List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, namely "taxes on the consumption or sale of electricity". S.4 levies duty on consumption, while S.3 levies duty on sale of energy. S.3 imposes a charge on every licensee to pay every month to Government in the prescribed manner a duty calculated at 6 paise per unit of energy sold at a price of more than 12 paise per unit; with an exception made in the case of sales of energy by the Board to another licensee. The three essential conditions for imposition of the charge are the existence of a licensee, sale of energy and a price of more than 12 paise per unit. The petitioner is admittedly a licensee. The price factor is also satisfied. The three essential conditions for imposition of the charge are the existence of a licensee, sale of energy and a price of more than 12 paise per unit. The petitioner is admittedly a licensee. The price factor is also satisfied. The only question is whether the second ingredient is satisfied in respect of the "self consumption" of energy by the petitioner. As stated earlier, the petitioner is paying the duty under S.4. as a consumer, on the energy consumed by it. It is also paying the duty on sales of energy affected by it to its officers, contractors and others. The dispute is only regarding the liability for duty under S.3 on its own consumption of energy. 8. It cannot by any stretch of imagination be stated that there is any sale by the petitioner of the energy consumed by it for its own purposes. The word "sale" is not defined in the Act, and it does not have any special meaning attached to it for purposes of the Act. The normal connotation of "sale" is that it involves a transfer of property from one person to another for a price. It is a bilateral transaction, which involves transfer of title from one person to another. No one can sell anything to himself (vide Joint Commercial Tax Officer v. Young Men's Indian Association (1970) 26 STC 241 (SC)). The existence of two parties is imperative before there can be a transaction of sale. See in this connection, Government Wood Work ship v. State of Kerala 1987(1) KLT 804, where it was held that the existence of two entities different from each other capable of transferring property from one to the other is the desideratum of a transaction of sale. The transfer of goods from one unit of the Small Scale Industries Development and Employment Corporation to another unit of itself was thus held not to amount to a sale. 9. The same principle must apply in the case of sale of electricity as well, whether it is treated as "goods" or not. It is therefore impossible to hold that there was any sale of energy affected by the petitioner when it consumed the energy for its own purposes. 10. S.3, in my view, postulates the charge for duty on a licensee only when the sale of energy is affected by that licensee itself. It is therefore impossible to hold that there was any sale of energy affected by the petitioner when it consumed the energy for its own purposes. 10. S.3, in my view, postulates the charge for duty on a licensee only when the sale of energy is affected by that licensee itself. The purchase of electricity simpliciter does not attract any levy on the purchaser, even if it be a licensee. The dutiable event is the sale and not the purchase (though they are facets of the same transaction). The charge is imposed only on the seller, on the energy sold. The proviso to sub-section (1) of .3 reinforces this view when it exempts the Board from paying duty when the energy is sold by it to another licensee. R.5 of the Rules (read with S.6) also leads to this conclusion, as it only requires that the books of accounts kept by the licensee should reflect the quantum of ales of energy affected by it. It is evident therefore that what is contemplated by S.3 is only a duty on the licensee - seller of the energy. The existence of a sale of energy in which the concerned licensee does not play the role of a seller of energy does not charge it with the duty. 11. In Kerala State Electricity Board v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd, AIR 1976 S.C.1031 the Supreme Court had occasion to touch upon this aspect incidentally. Paragraph 31 of the judgment is relevant. That case also concerned a sanctionee -licensee under S.28 of the Electricity Act, 1910. The case of the licensee was that it was not bound to pay surcharge under the Kerala State Electricity Supply (Kerala State Electricity Board and Licensees areas) Surcharge Order, 1968 on the electricity, which was consumed by it. The provisions in question were clauses 3 and 8 of the Surcharge Order under which a surcharge was levied on the licensee on all supplies of electric energy made by it either directly or through licensees. The provisions envisaged only a supply of energy to attract the surcharge. In that context, the Supreme Court observed: "It cannot be said that by consuming electricity itself the respondent is supplying electricity to itself. The provisions envisaged only a supply of energy to attract the surcharge. In that context, the Supreme Court observed: "It cannot be said that by consuming electricity itself the respondent is supplying electricity to itself. The surcharge order clearly makes a distinction between the consumer on the one hand and the licensee on the other and makes no provision for charge in the case of consumption of electricity by a licensee". It was therefore declared that the licensee consumer in that case need not pay surcharge on the electricity consumed by it. 12. The decision is a fortiori applicable to the facts of this case, in which S.3 of the Act requires a sale, and not merely a supply. When there is no sale by the petitioner, when it consumes the energy for its own purposes, the liability for duty under S.3 does not rise. The demand made for such duty by xts. P1, P3, P4 and P6 is totally without jurisdiction. The demand is only for duty on self consumption, as the petitioner has not raised any dispute regarding its liability for duty under S.4 or for the duty under S.3 for the supplies effected by it to its officers, contractors and the like. 13. The original petition is therefore allowed. Exts. P1, P3, P4 and P6 are quashed. It is declared that the petitioner is not liable for duty under the Kerala Electricity Duty Act, 1963 for the energy supplied to it by the Kerala State Electricity Board and consumed by it for its own purposes. There will be no order as to costs.