J C MILLS Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an industrial concern producing, for its own consumption, electric energy in its own power house. It has been taxed to electricity duty under section 3 of the Central Provinces and Berar Electricity Duty Act of 1949 as amended by the Madhya Pradesh Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 1956 (Act VII of 1956 Chap IV ). It has prayed that a proper writ or direction should be granted declaring the Electricity Duty Act as ultra vires of the Constitution and void as against him, and consequently to enjoin the State Government from levying the duty, and ordering it to refund the duty already collected.

(2.) THE petition has been fully and very ably presented by Shri Chitale, who has on our request, dealt with all the grounds he relies upon. Firstly, it is urged that even within the framework of the Act as amended, the duty cannot be levied from a producer producing electric power lor his own consumption or a consumer using electric power produced by himself. Secondly, the argument is that, even if the Act as it stands, did enable the levy of the electricity duty on such a producer, still it is ultra vires of the Constitution, and incompetent even under entry 53 of List II.

(3.) ONE has only to refer to the relevant sections including the table to find that both the arguments are unsustainable. Shri Chitale has urged, rightly from his view point, that the petition may be admitted and notice be issued on the State government, I am on principle against what may be called the mechanical admission of such applications simply because some ground is urged. Certainly, an application should be admitted if there is at least an arguable case. But if on the face of it there is no arguable case, and the mere reading of the enactment is sufficient to show the baselessness of the grounds, then the petition should be dismissed summarily. Obviously, a notice to the respondent is issued only, when there is something which he must face and explain, and not where the mere examination of the petitioner's grounds shows that they are without any force.