JUDGMENT Mr. Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J. (Oral):- The common case of the petitioners before us is that by the impugned notifications issued by respondent No.1, duty is sought to be levied on sale of electricity in the course of inter-state sale/trade. 2. The petitioners are different legal entities carrying on different nature of businesses, but the common cause for filing the present writ petition is that all of them, inter-alia, have been selling or intending to sell electricity from their independent/captive power plants to customers situated outside the State of Punjab under the various segments. 3. The first endeavour of respondent No.1 to impose duty on such sale of electricity was by issuance of a notification dated 28.1.2010 under Section 3(1) of the Punjab Electricity (Duty) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to “said Act”). The Act has been made with the objective of consolidating and rationalising the law relating to levy and collection of duty on electricity and for the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Relevant Section 3(1) and 3(2) of the said Act reads as under:- “3. Duty to be paid by consumer. (1) There shall be levied and paid to the State Government on the electricity supplied by the Board or any licensee or electricity trader or generating company to a consumer, a duty to be called the electricity duty at such rate, not exceeding twenty five per cent ad-valorem, as the State Government may from time to time by notification, specify: Provided that the State Government may specify different rates for different categories of consumers. (2) It shall be the duty of the Board or the licensee supplying electricity for consumption to collect the electricity duty from all the consumers in its area of supply in such form and pay the same to the State Government in such manner, as may be prescribed.” The obligation to recover the duty in terms of the aforesaid subsection (2) is on respondent No.2. The relevant portion of the first notification dated 28.1.2010 is extracted as under:- “In exercise of the Powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Punjab Electricity (Duty) Act, 2005 and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to order to levy 5% electricity duty for the Power generated and used for captive consumption from any source (other than Generating set generations for domestic use) or power traded outside the State. This levy shall not be applicable on the power evacuated to the Punjab State Electricity Board and further sold by Punjab State Electricity Board. The levy of 5% electricity duty shall be imposed at the rate on which PPA is signed or power traded less subsidy received from the Government of India/States under any head for Power generation.” 4. A reading of the aforesaid notification would show that 5% electricity duty was levied on (i) power generated and used for captive consumption from any source; (ii) power traded outside the State. 5. It appears that soon after issuance of the notification, respondent No.1 realised its folly in having imposition of electricity duty on power traded outside the State as that would be a duty on the basis of interstate trade which could not be subject matter of legislation by the State of Punjab. Thus, a second notification dated 9.4.2010 was issued increasing the duty to 13% and confining it to sale of electricity. No duty was levied on electricity produced for self-consumption. The relevant portion of that circular is extracted below:- “b. Instructions vide Commercial Circular No.12/2010 dated 23.2.2010 regarding charge of 5% duty on Electricity generated by all Captive Power Plant is amended such as only those Captive Power Plants to be charged Electricity duty @ 13% who are selling the electricity and if Electricity Producer is using it for self consumption then no duty shall be charged.” 6. It is at the aforesaid stage that the present writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the notifications and two circulars, including the aforesaid circular to the extent of levelling electricity duty on electricity sold outside the State of Punjab in the course of inter-state trade. 7. It is at the aforesaid stage that the present writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the notifications and two circulars, including the aforesaid circular to the extent of levelling electricity duty on electricity sold outside the State of Punjab in the course of inter-state trade. 7. A development which took place after the filing of the writ petition is the issuance of a consequent notification dated 25.5.2010 under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act as possibly once again respondent No.1 realised the fallacy in issuance of only a circular in pursuance to the earlier notification. The relevant clause of this notification reads as under:- “iii) Electricity Duty @ 13% shall be leviable on the Electricity sold by such Captive Power Plant outside the State through open access/PPA w.e.f. 1.4.2010. The tariff rate for levy of ED in such cases shall be as per the PPA or the rate as approved by PSERC, whichever is higher.” 8. The sum and substance of the case of the petitioners is actually culled out in para 8 of the writ petition, which reads as under:- “That the powers of the Parliament and the State Legislature to enact laws are governed by Articles 245 and 246 read with Schedule VII of the Constitution. The Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction to make laws under Article 246(1) with reference to the matters set out in List I of Schedule VII. Similarly, the State Legislatures in terms of Article 246(3) have the exclusive jurisdiction to make the laws with reference to the matters set out in List II of VII Schedule. In terms of Article 246(3) of the Constitution of India, the power to tax the sale or consumption of electricity is traceable to Entry 53 of List II of VII Schedule. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned notifications issued in exercise of powers derived from the 2005 Act, which in turn derives its legal sustenance from the State List, cannot be construed to levy electricity duty on such sale of electricity which is inter-state in nature.” 9. The defence taken by respondent No.1 as set out in the counter affidavit, however, is that the State of Punjab is within its authority to impose the duty on inter-state trade. The defence taken by respondent No.1 as set out in the counter affidavit, however, is that the State of Punjab is within its authority to impose the duty on inter-state trade. Once again, we find that the sum and substance of the defence is contained in Paras 1 and 2 of the preliminary submissions, which reads as under:- “1. That the State Government has levied the Electricity Duty upon the sale of power by Captive Power Plants situated within the State of Punjab out side the State through open access/Power Purchase agreement in exercise of the powers vested with the State Government under Section 3(1) of Punjab Electricity (Duty) Act, 2005 to the tune of 5% (Annexure P-1) and thereafter the same was enhanced to 13% vide notification No.13/18/2004-PE5/1550 dated 25.5.2010 (copy enclosed as Annexure R-1) on the charges for the sale of such power. 2) That the kind attention of the Hon’ble Court is drawn towards the various agreements referred in Para-10 (a to f) of the Writ Petition and it is obvious that all these agreements have been made and signed in the State of Punjab and the contracted quantum of power is fed by the seller in the Transmission system of the respondent No.2 at the designated sub-station located in the State of Punjab. The contracted quantum of Power is as measured at Generating Bus of the seller which too is located in the State of Punjab. Therefore, practically the consumers, though they are located outside the State of Punjab have become consumers of the State by virtue of drawing Power from the sub station located in the State of Punjab & quantum of sold Power also being measured at Generating Bus of the seller which is also located in the State of Punjab, and thus are liable to pay the Electricity duty imposed by the State Government. The true sense of the order is that the Electricity Duty is applicable on electricity sold by Captive Power Plants outside the State of Punjab but Petitioners have become consumers in the Punjab State as per agreements and by virtue of location of feeding point in the State of Punjab as explained above. 10. The true sense of the order is that the Electricity Duty is applicable on electricity sold by Captive Power Plants outside the State of Punjab but Petitioners have become consumers in the Punjab State as per agreements and by virtue of location of feeding point in the State of Punjab as explained above. 10. We may, however, notice at the inception itself that learned counsel for respondent No.1 fairly states that he cannot doubt the stand of the petitioners that if there is inter-state sale of electricity, the State of Punjab cannot impose electricity duty. His contention really is that there is no inter-state sale, but it is the sale within the State of Punjab and that is why there can be such a levy. 11. It is the common case of the parties that the law governing the matter in issue would be as per the Constitutional Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of A.P. Versus National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. And others, AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1895. In fact, the petitioners in the writ petition have ostensibly extracted law from the said judgment. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has also based his concession/fair stand aforesaid in view of the said judgment and submits that his plea of sale of electricity being within the State also emanates from the same judgment. We are, thus, required to extensively deal with the said judgment which would govern the rights and obligations of the petitioners. 12. The occasion for the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to analyse the issue in question arose on account of the writ petition allowed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad declaring the levy of duty by the State of Andhra Pradesh on the sales of electrical energy generated by the NTPCL at its thermal power station located within State of Andhra Pradesh and selling electricity powers and carrying out sale to the Electricity Boards of Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and State of Goa in pursuance of contracts of sales as illegal. The judgment of the High Court was passed on acceptance of plea of NTPCL that such sales occasioning inter-state movement of electricity is incompetent and outside the power of the State Legislature for imposition of tax. The judgment of the High Court was passed on acceptance of plea of NTPCL that such sales occasioning inter-state movement of electricity is incompetent and outside the power of the State Legislature for imposition of tax. The Act governing the dispute was the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1939 and the question arose whether the sale of electricity outside the State of Andhra Pradesh could be construed as inter-state sale or intra-state sale. Thus, the counsel says that the question was identical. 13. A reference to para 9 of the Supreme Court judgment would show that in a connected issue raised by State of Madhya Pradesh (identical to the plea of State of Andhra Pradesh) where NTPCL was a common party, a plea was sought to be advanced that the generating stations were located in State of Madhya Pradesh and, thus, the sale was not an inter-state sale, the situs of sale being within the State of Madhya Pradesh. It was pleaded that the buyers carried electricity to their respective States when property in electricity sold had already passed to them within the State of Madhya Pradesh. This was stated to be so on account of the fact that the agreement for sale of electricity, inter-alia, provided (i) metering within the State of M.P.; (ii) transmission losses within the State; (iii) wheeling loss from State of Madhya Pradesh to Home State of the buyer; (iv) transmission charges; (v) wheeling charges; (vi) delivery of electrical energy of Western Region Electricity Board in Madhya Pradesh; (vii) NTPCL ceases to have control over the electrical energy once it was delivered to WREB within the State of M.P. While raising the said plea, it was, however, not disputed that the power generated at the two stations in question was fed into transmission system of Power Grid Corporation of India Limited and the transmission systems of other bulk power beneficiaries where from the buyers draw the power purchased by them. Thus, great emphasis was laid on the fact that the points for metering are installed within the State of Madhya Pradesh and to that extent a distinction was sought to be carved out from a case of State of Andhra Pradesh. The Supreme Court in para 12 of the judgment took notice of the far-reaching implications of the Constitution (Sixth Amendment) Act, 1956 effective from 11.9.1956. The Supreme Court in para 12 of the judgment took notice of the far-reaching implications of the Constitution (Sixth Amendment) Act, 1956 effective from 11.9.1956. It, inter-alia, incorporated in List I-Union List (i) Entry 92A dealing with taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers, where such sale or purchase takes place in the course of inter-state, trade or commerce; (ii) after the existing Entry 52 dealing with taxes on entry of goods and Entry 53 dealing with taxes on the consumption or sale of electricity, Entry 54 was amended. The unamended Entry 54 referred to taxes on sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers, while the amended Entry 54 added that it was “subject to the provisions of Entry 92A of List-I”. Sub-clause (g) was added in Clause I in Article 269 of the Constitution. It was, thus, clarified that it was the Union of India which would levy taxes on sale or purchase of goods other than the newspapers, where such sale takes place in the course of inter-state trade or commerce. The Constitutional Bench considered appropriate to elaborate on the peculiarity as associated with electricity and its sale in Paras 20 and 21, which reads as under:- “20. Before we deal with the constitutional aspects let us first state what electricity is, as understood in law, and what are its relevant characteristics. It is settled with the pronouncement of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Indore Vs. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, Jabalpur- 1969 (2) SCR 939 that electricity is goods. The definition of goods as given in Article 366 (12) of the Constitution was considered by this Court and it was held that the definition in terms is very wide according to which “goods” means all kinds of moveable property. The term “moveable property” when considered with reference to “goods” as defined for the purpose of sales-tax cannot be taken in a narrow sense and merely because electrical energy is not tangible or cannot be moved or touched like, for instance, a piece of wood or a book it cannot cease to be moveable property when it has all the attributes of such property. It is capable of abstraction, consumption and use which if done dishonestly is punishable under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. It is capable of abstraction, consumption and use which if done dishonestly is punishable under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. If there can be sale and purchase of electrical energy like any other moveable object, this Court held that there was no difficulty in holding that electric energy was intended to be covered by the definition of “goods”. However, A.N. Grover, J., speaking for three-Judge Bench of this Court went on to observe that electric energy “can be transmitted, transferred, delivered, stored, possessed etc. in the same way as any other moveable property”. In this observation we agree with Grover, J., on all other characteristics of electric energy except that it can be ‘stored’ and to the extent that electric energy can be ‘stored’, the observation must be held to be erroneous or by oversight. The science and technology till this day have not been able to evolve any methodology by which electric energy can be preserved or stored. 21. Another significant characteristic of electric energy is that its generation or production coincides almost instantaneously with its consumption. To quote from Aiyar’s Law Lexicon (Second Edition, 2000)- ‘Electricity in physics is “the name given to the cause of a series of phenomena exhibited by various substances, and also to the phenomena themselves.” Its true nature is not understood. Imperial Dict. (quoted in Spensley v. Lancashire Ins. Co., 54 Wis. 433, 442, 11 NW 894, where the court, quoting from the same authority, said, “We are totally ignorant of the nature of this cause whether it be a material agent or merely a property of matter. But as some hypothesis is necessary for explaining the phenomena observed, it has been assumed to be a highly subtle, imponderable fluid, identical with lightning, which pervades the pores of all bodies, and is capable of motion from one body to another.’ This characteristic quality of electric energy was judicially noticed in Indian Aluminium Co.etc.etc. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (1996) 7 SCC 637 . Vide para 25 this Court has noted, “Continuity of supply and consumption starts from the moment the electrical energy passes through the meters and sale simultaneously takes place as soon as meter reading is recorded. All the three steps or phases (i.e. sale, supply and consumption) take place without any hiatus. (1996) 7 SCC 637 . Vide para 25 this Court has noted, “Continuity of supply and consumption starts from the moment the electrical energy passes through the meters and sale simultaneously takes place as soon as meter reading is recorded. All the three steps or phases (i.e. sale, supply and consumption) take place without any hiatus. It is true that from the place of generating electricity, the electricity is supplied to the sub-station installed at the units of the consumers through electrical higher-tension transformers and from there electricity is supplied to the meter. But the moment electricity is supplied through the meter, consumption and sale simultaneously take place.....” “as soon as the electrical energy is supplied to the consumers and is transmitted through the meter, consumption takes place simultaneously with the supply. There is no hiatus in its operation. Simultaneously sale also takes place.” These properties of electricity as goods are of immense relevance as we would state hereafter.” 14. The Supreme Court thereafter proceeded to analyse Entries 53 and 54 of List II in para 22 and 23 which read as under:- “22. We now come to the question on the interpretation of Entry 53 in List II of Seventh Schedule. It provides for taxes on the consumption or sale of electricity. The word ‘sale’ as occurring in Entry 52 came up for the consideration of this Court in Burmah Shell Oil Storage & Distributing Co. India Ltd. Vs. The Belgaum Borough Municipality 1963 Supp.(2) SCR 216. It was held that the act of sale is merely the means for putting the goods in the way of use or consumption. It is an earlier stage, the ultimate destination of the goods being “use or consumption”. We feel that the same meaning should be assigned to the word ‘sale’ in Entry 53. This is for a fortiorari reason in the context of electricity as there can be no sale of electricity excepting by its consumption, for it can neither be preserved nor stored. It is this property of electricity which persuaded this Court in Indian Aluminium Co. etc’s case (supra) to hold that in the context of electricity, the word ‘supply’ should be interpreted to include sale or consumption of electricity. Entry 53 should therefore be read as ‘taxes on the consumption or sale for consumption of electricity’. 23. It is this property of electricity which persuaded this Court in Indian Aluminium Co. etc’s case (supra) to hold that in the context of electricity, the word ‘supply’ should be interpreted to include sale or consumption of electricity. Entry 53 should therefore be read as ‘taxes on the consumption or sale for consumption of electricity’. 23. With these two things in mind, namely, that electricity is goods, and that sale of electricity has to be construed and read as sale for consumption within the meaning of Entry 53, the conflict, if any, between Entry 53 and Entry 54 ceases to exist and the two can be harmonized and read together. Because electricity is goods it is covered in Entry 54 also. It is not disputed that duty on electricity is tax. Tax on the sale or purchase of goods including electricity but excluding newspapers shall fall within Entry 54 and shall be subject to provisions of Entry 92A of List I. Taxes on the consumption or sale for consumption of electricity within the meaning of Entry 53 must be consumption within the State and not beyond the territory of the State. Any other sale of electricity shall continue to be subject to the limits provided by Entry 54. Even purchase of electricity would be available for taxation which it would not be if electricity was not includible in the meaning of term ‘goods’. A piece of legislation need not necessarily fall within the scope of one entry alone; more than one entry may overlap to cover the subject-matter of a single piece of legislation. A bare consumption of electric energy even by one who generates the same may be liable to be taxed by reference to Entry 53 and if the State Legislature may choose to impose tax on consumption of electricity by the one who generates it, such tax would not be deemed to be a tax necessarily on manufacture or production or a duty of excise, as held by Constitution Bench in Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd., Birlanagar, Gwalior Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1962 Supp.(1) SCR 282. A mere consumption of goods (other than electricity), not accompanied by purchase or sale would not be taxable under Entry 54 because it does not provide for taxes on the consumption and Entry 53 does not speak of goods other than electricity. State of Madhya Pradesh 1962 Supp.(1) SCR 282. A mere consumption of goods (other than electricity), not accompanied by purchase or sale would not be taxable under Entry 54 because it does not provide for taxes on the consumption and Entry 53 does not speak of goods other than electricity. Thus in substance Entries 53 and 54 can be and must be read together and to the extent of sale of electricity for consumption outside the State, the electricity being goods, shall also be subject to provisions of Entry 92A of List I. This, in our opinion, is the best way of reading the two entries. In C.P. Motor Spirit Act re., AIR 1939 FC 131, it was held that two entries in the lists may overlap and sometimes may also appear to be in direct conflict with each other. It is then the duty of this Court to reconcile the entries and bring about harmony between them. The Court should strive at searching for reasonable and practical construction to seek reconciliation and give effect to all of them. If reconciliation proves impossible the overriding power of Union Legislature operates and prevails. Gwyer, C.J. observed “A grant of the power in general terms, standing by itself, would no doubt be construed in the wider sense; but it may be qualified by other express provisions in the same enactment, by the implication of the context, and even by considerations arising out of what appears to be the general scheme of the Act.” And again he said...., “an endeavour must be made to solve it, as the Judicial Committee have said, by having recourse to the context and scheme of the Act, and a reconciliation attempted between two apparently conflicting jurisdictions by reading the two entries together and by interpreting, and, where necessary modifying the language of the one by that of the other. If needed such a reconciliation should prove impossible, then and only then, will the nonobstante clause operate and the federal power prevail.” In Calcutta Gas Co. Ltd. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors., 1962 Supp (3) SCR 1, the Constitution Bench has held that the same rules of construction apply for the purpose of harmonizing an apparent conflict between two entries in the same list.” 15. Ltd. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors., 1962 Supp (3) SCR 1, the Constitution Bench has held that the same rules of construction apply for the purpose of harmonizing an apparent conflict between two entries in the same list.” 15. The discussion thereafter is under the sub-heading as to “what is inter-state sale” and the relevant paragraphs are 28, 29, 30 and 31. The consequences, which flow from free flow of trade are thereafter discussed in Paras 32 and 33, which read as under:- “32. Yet another reason why we cannot accept the line of reasoning advanced on behalf of the States of Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh is that the same runs counter to the scheme of constitutional provisions and specially the Sixth Amendment. As has been found by the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in its impugned judgment, if the reasoning suggested on behalf of the State of A.P. was accepted, the State where the dealer supplying the electricity is located and the electricity originates for sale, as also the States in which the purchaser of electricity is located and it is delivered, shall both subject the electrical energy to taxation, by relying on the theory of territorial nexus. Such a situation would be the one which was obtaining in the country with respect to sales tax prior to coming into force of the Constitution and which led to complications and difficulties in administration of sales tax legislation and therefore, was taken care of by the Sixth Amendment. Such multiple taxation would result in hampering free movement of electricity between the States, and therefore, would be prejudicial to freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India, and for the unity and integrity of the country. That would give rise to the same situation which was sought to be remedied by the Constitution and the Sixth Amendment. 33. On behalf of the States of A.P. and M.P., it was submitted that subject of electricity has been specifically dealt with by Articles 287 and 288 of the Constitution and by implication the Articles, other than 287 and 288, should be read as not dealing with electricity. This submission is stated only to be rejected. 33. On behalf of the States of A.P. and M.P., it was submitted that subject of electricity has been specifically dealt with by Articles 287 and 288 of the Constitution and by implication the Articles, other than 287 and 288, should be read as not dealing with electricity. This submission is stated only to be rejected. These articles make some provisions for electricity and water or electricity in the special context dealt with by those articles and do not exclude applicability of other articles where electricity has been dealt with as goods.” 16. IN OUR VIEW, AFORESAID LEAVES NO MANNER OF DOUBT THAT THE FOLLOWING ASPECTS EMERGE FROM THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT:- a) Electricity is “goods” even if electrical energy is not tangible or cannot be moved or touched. It can be transmitted, transferred, delivered, possessed etc. like any other moveable property; b) A significant characteristic of electric energy is that its generation or production coincides almost instantaneously with its consumption. Thus, continuity of supply and consumption starts from the moment the electrical energy passes through the meters and sale simultaneously takes place as soon as the meter reading is recorded. This means that all three steps or phases, i.e., sale, supply and consumption take place without any hiatus. The produced electricity would pass on from the place of its generation to the sub station and thereafter to the consumer. The sale is at the place where the consumer is located. c) Entry 53 should be read as ‘taxes on the consumption or sale for consumption of electricity’ as sale of electricity can only take place by its consumption on account of its inability to be preserved or stored; d) In view of what is stated in Clause (g) aforesaid, there is no conflict between Entries 53 and 54 of List-II. Entry 53 must be construed as consumption within the State and not beyond the territory of the State. At most, even the conjoint reading of Entries 53 and 54 will give rise to the same position and sale of electricity for consumption outside the State would be subject to provisions of Entry 92A of List I; e) A legislation having extra territorial operation can be only enacted by Parliament and not by a State Legislature. At most, even the conjoint reading of Entries 53 and 54 will give rise to the same position and sale of electricity for consumption outside the State would be subject to provisions of Entry 92A of List I; e) A legislation having extra territorial operation can be only enacted by Parliament and not by a State Legislature. The only exception being on the ground of territorial nexus, however, in case of electricity, the sale and consumption are inseparable and it cannot be artificially assumed by creating a fiction that the sale of electricity can take place in two States. Thus, a State enactment having extra territorial operation would be vitiated; f) No State legislation nor any stipulation in any contract, can fix the situs of sale within the State or artificially define the completion of sale in such a way as to convert an inter-state sale into an intrastate sale or create a territorial nexus as a tax on an inter-state sale unless permitted by an appropriate Central Legislation; g) The definition of consumer in the Madhya Pradesh State, legislation had to be read down as including within it only such persons who receive the electricity for consumption or distribution for consumption within the State; h) Any multiple taxation would be hampering free movement of electricity between the States and would, thus, be prejudicial to freedom of trade, commerce and inter-course throughout the territory of India and for the unity and integrity of the country. This would give rise to the same situation which was sought to be remedied by the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of India. 17. In view of the aforesaid propositions, in our view there could have been hardly any doubt on the inability of levy arising from Annexure R-1 dated 25.5.2010, which is the final avtar of the electricity duty. Despite this fact, learned counsel for respondent No.1 made a valiant attempt to draw inferences from what is stated in Para 21 of the aforesaid judgment, where the lines from Indian Aluminum Co. etc.etc. Versus State of Kerala and others, (1996) 7 SCC 637 have been extracted to state that continuity of supply and consumption starts from the moment the electrical energy passes through the meter and ‘sale simultaneously takes place as soon as meter reading is recorded’. etc.etc. Versus State of Kerala and others, (1996) 7 SCC 637 have been extracted to state that continuity of supply and consumption starts from the moment the electrical energy passes through the meter and ‘sale simultaneously takes place as soon as meter reading is recorded’. Suffice for us to state, the judgment is not read like Statute and the complete meaning has to be understood. The aforesaid lines are immediately followed by the lines “all the three steps or phases ( i.e. sale, supply and consumption) take place without any hiatus”. Thereafter the fact mentioned is as to how post generated electricity is supplied to sub station and then to the meter. We are, thus, of the view that the imposition of duty as per Annexure R-1 for inter-state sale of electricity cannot be sustained as the State Legislature had no power to impose such taxes. 18. We must note with regret the complete non-application of mind on part of respondent No.1-authority in not appreciating the relevant legal provisions before issuance of notifications/circulars. It has been a case of one blunder after another. The law laid down by the Full Bench of the Supreme Court was number of years prior to these notifications. Thus, if due care had been taken to obtain appropriate legal advice, we cannot think that such a situation would have come to pass. This has created not only a problem for the petitioners but must have raised expectation from the fruitless exercise of respondent No.1 thinking that such money would come their way, apart from complete wastage of judicial time. 19. In the end, we may note that during the pendency of the petition, the issue arose of non-deposit of dues by the petitioners of the electricity duty, the writ petition was admitted on 16.1.2012 and orders were passed in the presence of the counsel for the parties that the electricity duty imposed would be refundable to the petitioners with interest @ 15% per annum if the writ petition was allowed. Thereafter CM No.8817 of 2013 was filed by respondent No.1 stating that earlier most of the petitioners were not depositing any amount, but once this order had been passed, some of them started depositing the amount and the interest of 15% was very high. This application was directed to be heard along with the main case as per order dated 2.7.2013. 20. This application was directed to be heard along with the main case as per order dated 2.7.2013. 20. Though the situation is as per the own making of respondent No.1, given facts and circumstances of the case and the prevailing rates of interest during the relevant period of time, we consider it appropriate to reduce the interest on the deposits already made by the petitioners to respondent No.1 to 9% simple interest from the date of deposit till date of refund subject to the condition that the refunds are made within a period of one month from today, failing which the interest of 15% would operate as directed in the proceedings by this Court prior to the deposit. 21. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute. 22. Though it is a fit case for imposition of costs on respondent No.1, we refrain from doing so. ---------0.B.S.0------------