JUGSALAI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application raises the question of vires of Rule 14 (6) of the Bihar Electricity Duty Rules, 1949 (hereinafter to be call ed "the Rules").

(2.) THE petitioner is a licensee under the Electricity Act, 1910, and is a supplier of electric energy. THE petitioner is also a licensee within the meaning of Section 2 (d) of the Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be called "the Act") and is liable for payment of duties under the Act. For the year 1966-67 the petitioner was assessed to a duty of Rs. 92,418.40 paise under the Act as against the admitted duty of Rs. 83.258.13 paise by the Additional Superintendent of Commercial Taxes at Jamshedpur. Against the order of assessment, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 9-A (1) of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Chotanagpur Division, and the same was dismissed on merit. THE petitioner then filed a revision before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). Chotanagpur Division, under Section 9-A (3) of the Act read with Rule 14 (2), of the Rules. THE revisional application was dismissed on the 20th of January. 1970. THE petitioner after obtaining the certified copy of the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Chotanagpur Division, filed a second revision before the Commercial Taxes Tribunal. Bihar, Patna under Section 9-A (3) of the Act read with Rule 14 (3) of the Rules which was numbered as Election Revision Case No. 1 of 1970. THE revisional application was, however, dismissed in limine by the order of the Tribunal dated the 6th of November, 1970, on the ground that the application was not filed within the prescribed period, namely, within 30 days of the passing of the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and no cause was shown for not filing the application in revision within the prescribed period. THE petitioner then filed an application under Section 9-D (i) of the Act before the Tribunal for making a reference to the High Court certain questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated the 6th of November. 1970. That application was rejected by the Tribunal by its order dated the 19th of April, 1971. THE petitioner then filed this writ application in this Court challenging the vires of Rule 14 (6) of the Rules.

(3.) MR. Jain appearing for the petitioner submitted that Rule 14 (6) of the Rules is valid in so far as it prescribes limitation for appeals but it is invalid in so far as it prescribes limitation for revision. The above contention, is founded upon the difference in the language which has been used in the two sub-sections of Section 9-A. According to learned counsel, the Legislature by using the expression "within the prescribed period" in Sub-section (1) of Section 9-A left it to the rule-making authority to prescribe limitation for filing an appeal. In Sub-section (3) of Section 9-A no such expression has been used and as such the Legislature has not left it to the rule-making authority to prescribe any limitation for revision. So Rule 14 (6) of the Rules in so far as it prescribes limitation for revision is ultra vires Section 9-A (3) of the Act.