Consent from President not required for amendments to S. 3 and 7, which are within purview of A.P. Electricity Duty Act: Andhra Pradesh HC
The amendments to section 3 and 7 of the Duty Act, are within the purview of the main Duty Act and as such no further assent would be required.
In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that consent from president not required for amendments to Section 3 and 7, which are within purview of A.P. Electricity Duty Act, 1939. A.P. Textile Mills Association, the A.P. Electricity Duty Act, 1939 (the Duty Act) was enacted for levying duty on the sale of electrical energy by licensees. The term Licensee...
In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that consent from president not required for amendments to Section 3 and 7, which are within purview of A.P. Electricity Duty Act, 1939.
A.P. Textile Mills Association, the A.P. Electricity Duty Act, 1939 (the Duty Act) was enacted for levying duty on the sale of electrical energy by licensees. The term Licensee was originally defined to mean any person licensed under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 to supply energy or any person who was authorized under section 28 of the same Act to supply energy. This definition was amended to mean a person who has been granted a licence under section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here
The Single Judge, after considering these issues, had observed that there was no challenge to Act 10 of 2021 or the amended or un- amended provisions of Section 3 of the Duty Act and to the classification of electricity energy consumers, and that the challenge was only to G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 08.04.2022.
The Act 10 of 2021 was reserved by the Governor on the 24th of December, 2020 for the consideration and assent of the President and received the assent, of the President, on 07.08.2021. The subsequent amendment Acts 10 of 2024 and 23 of 2024, were neither reserved for the assent of the President nor was such assent received. The petitioners contend that since consent was not obtained, both Act 10 of 2024 and 23 of 2024 are invalid.
Understanding Common Mode of Tax Evasion with Practical Scenarios, Click Here
It cannot be said that the assent of the President is required, for the amending Act, on the sole ground that the principal Act had obtained the assent of the President, unless it can be shown that such assent is required under any of the provisions of the Constitution. The petitioners, except contending that the assent of the President is needed for Act 10 of 2024 and 23 of 2024, have not explained why such assent of the President was required. The assent of the President is required, in the circumstances enumerated under Article 301 read with 304, Article 254 and where the
The division bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R Raghunandan Rao observed that in case of Article 254 (2), If a law is made by the State legislature, with respect to any matter enumerated in the Concurrent list and contains any provision which is repugnant to any earlier law made by parliament or any existing law, the State law would prevail if the assent of the President is received. Act 10 of 2024 and Act 23 of 2024 have been enacted in respect of matters enumerated in Entry 53 of the State list and not under any entry in the concurrent list. The impugned Acts are not related to any entry in the concurrent list. The question of seeking the assent of the president, on this ground, would not arise.
Step by Step Guidance for Tax Audit & E-filing, Click Here
The Duty Act seeks to levy Duty on the sale of electricity, within the State. This Act does not restrict any interstate trade or commerce, to attract the provisions of Article 301 to 304 of the Constitution. The main Duty Act, which is a pre Constitutional Act, obviously did not receive the assent of the President. However, Act 10 of 2021, which amended section 3 of the Duty Act, received the assent of the President, after it had been reserved, for such assent, by the Governor. However, the reasons for such a course of action have not been explained, either by the petitioners or the State.
The Supreme Court, when faced with a similar situation, had held in Syed Ahmed Aga And Ors., vs. State Of Mysore And Ors.,10 that reservation of a Bill, for the assent of the President, is not necessary for an Act seeking to amend a principal Act, which has obtained such assent, if the amendment is within the purview of the principal Act.
The court held that the amendments to section 3 and 7 of the Duty Act, are within the purview of the main Duty Act and as such no further assent would be required. This issue is held against the petitioners.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
