https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289308 Installation works carried out by an electric supply company at its own expense and retained as its property were treated as falling within the exemption for the company's "own works" under the relevant electricity notification. The Bombay HC construed Rule 48 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1937, and the corresponding Rule 40A of the 1922 Rules, together with the exemption notification, broadly and declined to limit the exemption to works on the company's own premises or to a narrower supply-line meaning. On that basis, the allegation that installation work had been done without an electrical contractor's licence was rejected, no breach of the electricity rule was established, and the acquittal was upheld. en-us Mon, 07 Oct 1940 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Jul 2020 15:42:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289308 Installation works carried out by an electric supply company at its own expense and retained as its property were treated as falling within the exemption for the company's "own works" under the relevant electricity notification. The Bombay HC construed Rule 48 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1937, and the corresponding Rule 40A of the 1922 Rules, together with the exemption notification, broadly and declined to limit the exemption to works on the company's own premises or to a narrower supply-line meaning. On that basis, the allegation that installation work had been done without an electrical contractor's licence was rejected, no breach of the electricity rule was established, and the acquittal was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 07 Oct 1940 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289308