Gujarat HC: The Court Holds in Favour of the Subsidiary Company of a Renowned French Company in the Dispute with the Collector of Electricity Duty

Must Read

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Follow us

The Air Liquide India Holding Private (Petitioner) had challenged the impugned order (2016) passed by Collector of Electricity Duty (Second Respondent) at Gandhinagar, where an exemption from payment of electricity duty under the Gujarat Electricity Duty Act, 1958 (here­in­after “the Act”) to the petitioner has been denied.

The Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956, and a wholly-owned subsidiary of a French company and a world leader in extraction, production and supply of gases for industry, etc. The petitioner was earlier engaged in providing facilitation for manufacturing of nitrogen gas in the State of Gujarat. In the year 2009, petitioner decided to establish its own independent industrial undertaking for carrying out various activities and the sanction was obtained. However, the Second Respondent in an order in 2010, rejected the application of the petitioner to grant exemption from the electricity duty by considering the independent unit of the petitioner as a new industrial undertaking within the purview of the Act. The petitioner being aggrieved by this preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Act but they dismissed it. The petitioner thereafter preferred, Special Civil Application before the HC wherein ad interim relief restraining the respondents from initiating coercive recovery of electricity duty from the petitioner was granted by order in 2013. This Court by judgment and order in 2015 ordered to set aside the order passed by the appellate authority in 2013 on the ground that said order was thoroughly non-speaking and unreasoned and remanded the matter back to the original authority (Second Respondent) to ascertain certain limited factual aspects.

Arguments before the Court

The advocate for the petitioner contended that the Petitioner had established that the unit is set up by purchasing new plant and machinery and the plant and machinery at any of the sites of its clients i.e. the plant and machinery previously used at the site other companies are not used in setting up this unit. Per contra, the advocate for the Respondents argued that the petitioner was in the business of manufacture and supply of industrial gases in the State of Gujarat and therefore, the petitioner would not be eligible for exemption from the electricity duty, with other similar arguments.

Decision of the Court

The Court held that the petition succeeds. That the Impugned order of 2016 passed by the Collector of Electricity Duty, Gandhinagar is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment/levy of electricity duty for five years from 2009 to 2014 and the respondents are hereby directed to refund the amount of electricity duty paid by the petitioner for a period of exemption for industrial consumption of energy under the Act.

[googlepdf url=”http://libertatem.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/SCA171822016_GJHC240495942016_5_10012020_watermark.pdf” download=”Download Judgement PDF” ]


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -