Court rules in favor of petitioner, no liability for electricity duty. Attachment orders quashed, refund ordered.

The court held that the petitioner-company is not liable to pay electricity duty or surcharge under the Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1948. The attachment orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes were quashed, and the respondents were directed to refund the amount of Rs. 20,04,361.81 paise to the petitioner-company within three months. The writ application was allowed, and each party was directed to bear its own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Liability of the petitioner-company to pay electricity duty under the Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1948.
2. Validity of the attachment orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.
3. Liability of the petitioner-company to pay surcharge under Section 3A of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability of the petitioner-company to pay electricity duty under the Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1948:
The court examined whether the petitioner-company is liable to pay electricity duty to the State of Bihar. The petitioner-company argued that it is not liable under the Act, as it is not a licensee. The court noted that Section 3 of the Act imposes a duty on the units of energy consumed or sold, but it does not specify who should pay the duty. Section 4 clarifies that the duty is to be paid by the licensee or other specified persons. The court found that the petitioner-company, not being a licensee, is not liable under Section 4(1). The court further examined Sub-sections (4) and (4a) of Section 4 and concluded that the petitioner-company does not generate energy for its own use or for sale, and thus, is not liable under these provisions either.

2. Validity of the attachment orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes:
The petitioner-company challenged the attachment orders of its bank accounts issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The court found that the orders were issued without any assessment or demand notice, making them per se invalid. The court also noted that the attachment orders were issued under Section 27 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, for the realization of the surcharge, which was not applicable in this case. Consequently, the court quashed the attachment orders contained in Annexures 4, 5, and 6.

3. Liability of the petitioner-company to pay surcharge under Section 3A of the Act:
The court examined whether the petitioner-company is liable to pay surcharge under Section 3A of the Act. Section 3A(1) states that every licensee or other person liable to pay duty under Section 4 shall also pay a surcharge. Since the petitioner-company is not liable to pay duty under Section 4, it is also not liable to pay the surcharge. Furthermore, Section 3A(2) prohibits the collection of surcharge from the consumer, and since the petitioner-company is a consumer, it cannot be made liable for the surcharge.

Conclusion:
The court held that the petitioner-company is not liable to pay electricity duty or surcharge under the Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1948. The attachment orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes were quashed, and the respondents were directed to refund the amount of Rs. 20,04,361.81 paise to the petitioner-company within three months. The writ application was allowed, and each party was directed to bear its own costs.

---