https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168919 The Court held that Article 288 did not invalidate the State levy, because its special protection was confined to specified inter-State river or river-valley authorities and not ordinary consumers. It further held that the State tax law was not repugnant to the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, since taxation and regulation operated in distinct fields and the State acted within legislative competence. The repeal-and-savings clause preserved accrued exemption rights, and the earlier exemption notifications survived; promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation also supported that result. Electricity tax was confined to actual consumption and could not be extended to maximum demand charges or transmission loss. en-us Tue, 15 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Nov 2015 09:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168919 The Court held that Article 288 did not invalidate the State levy, because its special protection was confined to specified inter-State river or river-valley authorities and not ordinary consumers. It further held that the State tax law was not repugnant to the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, since taxation and regulation operated in distinct fields and the State acted within legislative competence. The repeal-and-savings clause preserved accrued exemption rights, and the earlier exemption notifications survived; promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation also supported that result. Electricity tax was confined to actual consumption and could not be extended to maximum demand charges or transmission loss. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 15 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168919