ORIENT PAPER AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Challenge herein by special leave is to the judgment of the Orissa High court In a dispute arising out of the demand under the Orissa Electricity (Duty) Act, 1961. The appellant is a manufacturer of paper having its industry located at Brajrajnagar in the District of Sambalpur in Orissa State. It operates a captive electricity generation unit tor Its production. In 1961, fche State Legislature decided fco levy a duty as permissible under entry 53 of List II of Schedule VII on self-consumption of electricity by captive generation by the producer. The Act has undergone amendment from time to time. Initially the rate of duty was couped up with a tariff rate prescribed for Thermal duty but later it was changed and from 1980 there has been a huge escalation in the rate when the basis was changed from the existing pattern to adopting the general tariff rates of the Board. There is no dispute that from 1986 under Orissa Act IX of 1986 there has again been a substantial reduction of the rate of duty and now it is as per Schedule prescribed under the Act on unit basis. There is no challenge to the reduced rate and the appellant has been paying the same.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant tried to impress upon us that the rate at which duty was charged between 1979 and 1986 brought about a burden which the industry could not take and out of its operational difficulties on viable basis the contention which is the foundation for challenge has come.

(3.) Counsel does not dispute the power of the State to levy a duty. What we have been told in course of argument is about the manner in which the duty has been levied and the challenge is to the sudden hike in the rate. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we noticed that the dispute was confined to the period between 1979 and 1986 and was not surviving beyond that period. We, therefore, suggested to them that the better way would be to settle up the dispute. Learned counsel for the State told us that there are several other industries similarly placed as the appellant and they have without challenge paid the duty at higher rates and it would be difficult for the State to treat the appellant differentially by giving up a part of the duty so far as the appellant alone is concerned. He further pointed out that amounts so collected over the years from several consumers of captivity produced energy have been utilised in the normal course and it would be difficult for the State to pay back the same. We have taken into consideration these submissionsand are of the view that there is substance in the stand taken by the counsel for the respondent. In these circumstances, the only reasonable way in which this appeal can be disposed of, appears to us to be to consider the appellant's claim confined to the question of payment of interest on the outstanding dues and a little accommodation by spreading over the demand over a reasonable period to facilitate payment.