2022 INSC 0017
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7319 OF 2021
The State of Maharashtra        ..Appellant (S)
Versus
Shri Vile Parle Kelvani Mandal & Ors.    .. Respondent (S)
J U D G M E N T 
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment  and order  dated 28.02.2019 passed  by  the  High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.2961 of
2018,   by   which   the   High   Court   has   allowed   the   said   writ
petition   preferred   by   respondents   No.1   to   10   herein   ­
original   writ   petitioners   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   original
writ petitioners – education institutions) and held that the
original   writ   petitioners   are   exempted   from   payment   of
1

electricity duty, the State of Maharashtra has preferred the
present appeal. 
2. That   the   original   writ   petitioners   are   the   education
institutions   run   and   manage   by   original   writ   petitioner
No.1  – Shri  Vile Parle  Kelvani  Mandal,  a society  registered
under   the   Societies   Registration   Act,   1860   and   also   a
public   charitable   trust   registered   under   the   Maharashtra
Public   Trusts   Act,   1950.   That   the   writ   petitioners   have
taken   electricity   connections   for   power   supply   to   their
education   institutions   from   respective   power   supply
companies.   That   prior   to   01.09.2016,   the   charitable
education   institutions   were   exempted   from   payment   of
electricity   duty   levied   on   the   consumption   charges   or   the
energy   consumption   for   the   purposes   of   or   in   respect   of   a
school   or   college   or   institution   imparting   education   or
training,   students'   hostels,   hospitals,   nursing   homes   etc.
as   per   Section   3(2)(iii)   of   the  Maharashtra   Electricity  Duty
Act, 1958. That in the year 2018, the respective electricity
supply  companies levied the electricity duty pursuant to a
letter from the Industries, Energy and Labour Department,
2

Government   of   Maharashtra   stating   that   as   per
Maharashtra   Electricity   Act,   2016,   charitable   institutions
registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950   (now
known   as   Maharashtra   Public   Trusts   Act,   1950)   for   the
purpose   of   or   in   respect   of   school   or   college   imparting
education or training in academic or technical subjects are
not   entitled   for   electricity   duty   exemption   with   effect   from
1st   September,   2016.   The   respective   power   supply
companies levied electricity duty at 21% and the bills were
raised   accordingly   on   original   writ   petitioners   and   their
education   institutions   for   the   period   post   01.09.2016.
Aggrieved by the levy of electricity duty on the educational
charitable   institutions   run   by   the   original   writ   petitioner
No.1   –   respondent   No.1   herein,   original   writ   petitioners
preferred   the   writ   petition   before   the   High   Court.   By   the
impugned   judgment   and   order,   the   Division   Bench   of   the
High   Court   has   allowed   the   said   writ   petition   and   has   set
aside   the   levy   of   electricity   duty   on   writ   petitioners   and
consequently   has   set   aside   respective   electricity   bills
levying   the   electricity   duty   on   consumption   of   electricity
charge.      
3

3. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court, the State of
Maharashtra has preferred the present appeal.
4. Shri   Sachin   Patil,   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of
the   State   has   vehemently   submitted   that   in   the   facts   and
circumstances of the case, the High Court has committed a
grave   error   in   holding   that   the   original   writ   petitioners   –
charitable   education   institutions   are   not   liable   to   pay   the
electricity duty.    
4.1 It  is   further  submitted   that  in   absence   of  challenge   to   the
relevant   provisions   of   the   Maharashtra   Electricity   Act,
2016,   the   High   Court   ought   not   to   have   allowed   the   writ
petition   and   ought   not   to   have   set   aside   the   levy   of
electricity   duty   levied   from   charitable   education
institutions like the original writ petitioners. 
4.2 It   is   further   submitted   by   Shri   Sachin   Patil,   learned
counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   State   that   the   High
Court   has   not   properly   appreciated   and   considered   the
4

relevant   provisions   pre   and   post   the   Maharashtra
Electricity Act, 2016. 
4.3 It   is   submitted   that   as   per   Section   3(2)(a)(iiia)   of   the
Maharashtra   Electricity   Duty   Act,   1958,   the   charitable
intuitions   registered   under   the   Bombay   Public   Trusts   Act,
for   the   purpose   of,   or   in   respect   of,   school   or   college,
imparting   education   or   training   in   academic   or   technical
subjects   (save   in   respect   of   premises   used   for   residential
purposes)   were   exempted   from   levy   of   the   electricity   duty
on   the   consumption   charges   or   the   units   of   energy
consumed.   It   is   submitted   that   however,   on   enactment   of
the Maharashtra Electricity Duty Act, 2016 which repealed
the  earlier  the  Maharashtra Electricity   Duty  Act, 1958,  no
such   exemption   from   levy/payment   of   electricity   duty   has
been provided to such charitable education institutions.
4.4 It   is   submitted   that   the   High   Court   has   failed   to   consider
there   is   no   provision,   similar   to   the   Repealed   Act   of   1958
(the   Maharashtra   Electricity   Duty   Act,   1958)   in   the   new
Act,   2016   (Maharashtra   Electricity   Duty   Act,   2016),   and
the   charitable   education   institutions   whether   registered
5

before   or   after   coming   into   the   new   Act   of   2016,   are   not
entitled to the exemption from payment of electricity duty.
4.5 It   is   further   submitted   that   the   High   Court   has   not
properly   appreciated   or   considered   that   by   virtue   of   the
statutory   provisions   under   the   Repealed   Act   of   1958,   the
charitable  education   institutions  were  enjoying   concession
from   payment   electricity   consumption   duty/   electricity
consumption   charges   and   therefore   there   was   no   need   to
issue   a   specific   order   in   their   favour   under   the   Repealed
Act of 1958. It is submitted that therefore, if any order had
been issued by the department in favour of any institution,
it is neither an order as contemplated under Repealed Act,
1958   nor   it   is   saved   from   proviso   of   Section   4   of   the
Maharashtra   Electricity   Duty   Act,   2016.   It   is   submitted
that therefore, after commencement of the new Act of 2016,
such   order   does   not   confer   right   upon   the   charitable
education institutions to claim exemption.
4.6 It   is   further   submitted   that   as   such   the   language   used   in
the new Act of 2016 with respect to the exemption/levy of
electricity   duty   is   very   clear   and   unambiguous.   It   is
6

submitted   that   the   words   used   are   plain   and   simple   and
therefore the same should be read with the intention of the
legislature particularly in favour of revenue. It is submitted
that   as   per   the   law   laid   down   by   this   Court   in   catena   of
decisions   a   taxing   statute   is   to   be   construed   in   favour   of
assesse but an exception or an exemption provision from a
taxing  statute has to  be construed strictly. It is submitted
that even if there is any ambiguity in that regard the issue
must be answered in favour of revenue. 
4.7 In   support   of   the   above   submissions,   learned   counsel
appearing on behalf of the State has relied on the following
decisions   of   this   Court:­   Commr.   of   Customs   Vs.   Dilip
Kumar   &   Co. ,   (2018)   9   SCC   1;   Central   Public
Information   Officer,   Supreme   Court   of   India   Vs.
Subhash   Chandra   Agarwal ,   (2020)   5   SCC   481;   Essar
Steel   India   Ltd.   &   Anr.   Vs.   State   of   Gujarat   &   Anr. ,
(2017)   8   SCC   357;   Star   Industries   Vs.   Commr.   of
Customs   (Imports) ,   (2016)   2   SCC   362;   Giridhar   G.
Yadalam   Vs.   Commissioner   of   Wealth   Tax   &   Another ,
7

(2015)   17   SCC   664;   Godrej   &   Boyce   Mfg.   Co.   Ltd.   Vs.
Deputy   Commissioner   of   Income   Tax   &   Anr. ,   (2017)   7
SCC 421.
5. Making the above submissions and relying on the aforesaid
decisions   of   this   Court,   it   is   prayed   to   allow   the   present
appeal   and   quash   and   set   aside   the   impugned   judgment
and order passed by the High Court.
6. The present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Shekhar
Naphade,   learned   Senior   Advocate,   appearing   on   behalf   of
the   original   writ   petitioners   –   respondents   No.1   to   10
herein. 
6.1 It   is   vehemently   submitted   by   Shri   Shekhar   Naphade,
learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original
writ  petitioners that  in  the  facts and   circumstances  of  the
case   and   considering   the   fact   that   the   original   writ
petitioners   are   charitable   education   institutions,   the   High
Court   has   rightly   held   that   they   are   exempted   from
payment of electricity duty. 
8

6.2 It   is   submitted   by   Shri   Naphade,   learned   Senior   Advocate
appearing  on  behalf  of the original writ petitioners that  as
observed   by   this   Court   in   the   case   of   C.W.S.   (India)   Ltd.
Vs.   Commissioner   of   Income   Tax ,   1994   Supp   (2)   SCC
296 (para 10), where a literal interpretation leads to absurd
result, the wording of the statute can be modified to accord
with the intention of the legislature and to avoid absurdity.
6.3 It   is   submitted   that   if   the   interpretation   canvassed   by   the
state is accepted then it will lead to absurdity and manifest
injustice as  school/colleges etc. run  by   the local  authority
will   fall   within   the   purview   of   Section   3(2)(iii)   of   2016   Act,
while   those   run   by   the   statutory   university   or   charitable
institution registered under Bombay Trusts Act, 1950 (now
known as Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950), would fall
outside the ambit of Section 3(2)(iii). It is submitted that as
such   there   is   no   essential   difference   between
schools/colleges   etc.   run   by   the   statutory   university   or
institution registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts
Act,   1950   and   those   run   by   the   local   authority.   It   is
9

submitted   that   such   absurdity   or   injustice   cannot   be   the
intention of the legislature. 
6.4 It   is   further   submitted   by   Shri   Naphade,   learned   Senior
Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   original   writ
petitioners   that   there   is   always   a   presumption   that   the
legislature   does   not   intend   to   violate   Article   14   of   the
Constitution   of   India.   It   is   submitted   that   as   per   the   case
on   behalf   of   the   State,   Section   3(2)(iii)   of   2016   Act   covers
only   schools/colleges   etc.   of   the   local   authority   and   those
run   by   the   statutory   university   or   by   private   institutions
are   outside   the   scope   of   Section   3(2)(iii)   of   2016   Act.   It   is
submitted   that   this   would   lead   to   discrimination   and
arbitrariness.   It   is   submitted   that   who   runs   the
educational institution cannot be the intelligible differentia
for the purpose of classification. It is submitted that if such
an interpretation is accepted then Section 3(2)(iii) would be
ultra   vires   Article   14   of   the   Constitution.   It   is   submitted
that   while   interpreting   Section   3(2)(iii)   of   2016   Act,   Article
14   must   be   considered   and   interpretation   which   would
accord   with   the   mandate   of   Article   14   should   be   adopted.
10

Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case
of  B.R. Enterprises Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. , (1999) 9 SCC
700 (para 81). 
6.5 It   is   further   submitted   that   even   otherwise   there   is
presumption   that   legislature   does   not   make   radical
changes in existing law. Reliance is placed on the decision
of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Byram   Pestonji   Gariwala   Vs.
Union   Bank   of   India   &   Ors. ,   (1992)   1   SCC   31   (para   29­
38). 
It is submitted that it is not in dispute that Section 3(2)
(iii  a)  of  1958  Act  clearly   provided  that  the  electricity  duty
shall   not   be   imposed   on   schools/colleges   etc.   run   by
charitable   institutions   registered   under   the   Maharashtra
Public   Trusts   Act,   1950.   It   is   submitted   that   there   is   no
dispute that the schools/colleges etc. of the writ petitioners
fall   within   the   purview   the   purview   of   Section   3(2)(iii   a)   of
1958 Act. It is submitted that therefore there is nothing in
2016   Act   which   warrants   a   conclusion   that   there   is   a
radical change in law leading to duty being imposed on the
11

educational   institutions   being   run   by   the   original   writ
petitioner.   
6.6 Pointing   out   the   following   aspects,   it   is   submitted   by   Shri
Naphade   learned   Senior   Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of
the   original   writ   petitioners,   that   as   such   there   are   no
radical   changes   between   the   Maharashtra   Electricity   Duty
Act, 1958 (1958 Act) and the Maharashtra Electricity Duty
Act,   2016   (2016   Act).   It   is   submitted   that   under   Section
3(2) of 1958 Act, no duty could be imposed on the following
entities:­
(a) Government of Maharashtra [Section 3(2)(i)]
(b) Local   authorities   carrying   on   specified   activities
[Section 3(2)(ia)]
(c) Licensee   carrying   on   specified   activities   [Section
3(2)(ib)]
(d) Tramway company [Section 3(2)(ii)]
(e) Entity   generating   electricity   for   the   purpose   of
supplying   it   for   the   use   of   vehicles   and   vessels.
[Section 3(2)(iv)]
12

Note­   under   1958   Act   no   duty   could   be   imposed   on
the Central Government due to the provisions of
Article 285 of the Constitution.    
6.6.1 It is further submitted that under Section 3(2) of 2016 Act
no duty can be imposed on the following entities:­
(a) State Government [Section 3(2)(i)]
(b) Central Government [Section 3(2) (ii)]
This  is by   way  abundant  caution  as  no  duty  can   be
imposed   on   the   Central   Government   due   to   Article
285 of the Constitution. 
(c) Licensee carrying on specified activities. [Section 3(2)
(v)]
(d) Generating Company [Section 3(2)(vi)]
(e) Entity   generating   electricity   for   use   of   vehicles   and
vessels [Section 3(2)(vii)]
Note   –   At   present   there   is   Tramway   company   in   the
State   of   Maharashtra.   Thus   there   is   no   change   in
2016 Act as regards the entities who are not subject
to imposition of duty.   
13

6.6.2 Further, under Section 3(2) of the 1958 Act no duty could
be imposed on following activities:­  
(a) Educational   institutions   run   by   local   authority   or
statutory university, or charitable institution registered
under  Bombay   Trusts   Act,  1950.   [Section   3(2)(ia),  3(2)
(iii) and 3(2)(iiia)]
(b) Local   authority   using   electricity   for   hospital,   nursing
home,   dispensary,   clinic,   public   street   lighting,   public
water   works,   system   of   public   sewers   or   drains.
[Section 3(2)(ia)]
(c) Use   of   electricity   by   licensee   for   the   purpose   of
construction,   maintenance,   or   operation   of   any
generating,   transmitting   and   distributing   system.
[Section 3(2)(ib)]
(d) Generation of electricity for the purpose of supplying it
for the use of vehicles or vessels. [Section 3(2)(iv)]
(e) Where   the   energy   is   generated   at   a   voltage   not
exceeding 100 volts. [Section 3(2)(v)]   
6.7 It is submitted that both under the 1958 Act and 2016 Act,
the   premises   used   by   entities   specified   under   Section   3(2)
14

for   the   purpose   of   residence   are   subject   to   imposition   of
duty. 
6.8 It   is   submitted   that   aforesaid   analysis   clearly   shows   that
the   entities   on   whom   no   duty   can   be   imposed   have
remained the same subject to the rider that if the premises
are used for residence, duty can be imposed. 
6.9 It   is   submitted   that   the   only   question   is   whether
educational   activities   carried   on   by   local   authorities,
statutory   university   or   a   charitable   institution   registered
under the Bombay Trusts Act, 1950 are within the purview
of Section 3(2) of the 2016 Act?
6.10 It is submitted that it is not in dispute that under the 1958
Act,   the   educational   institutions   carried   out   by   local
authorities,   statutory   university,   or   the   charitable
institutions   were   not   subject   to   imposition   of   duty.   The
other   activities   which   are   not   subject   to   imposition   of
electricity duty, both under the 1958 Act and 2016 Act are
as follows:­ 
15

(a)   Specified   activities   by   local   authorities   [See   Section
3(2)(ia) of 1958 Act Section 3(2)(iii) of 2016 Act. 
(b) Generation of electricity for construction, maintenance
and   operation   of   any   generating,   transmitting   and
distrusting   system   by   licensee.   [See   Section   3(2)(ib)   of
1958 Act and Section 3(2)(v) of 2016 Act. 
(c) Generation   of   electricity   for   the   purpose   of   supplying
for the use of vehicles or vessels [See Section 3(2)(iv) of
1958 Act and Section 3(2) (vii) of 2016 Act. 
(d) Generation of electricity at a voltage not exceeding 100
volts   [See   Section   3(2)(v)   of   the   1958   Act   and   Section
3(2)(viii) of 2016 Act.      
6.11 It   is   submitted   that   thus   entities   who   are   not   subject   to
imposition   of   duty   have   remained   the   same,   both   under
1958   Act   and   2016   Act   and   that   other   activities
enumerated herein above have remained same, both under
1958 Act and 2016 Act. It is submitted that therefore, it is
difficult to accept that in respect of educational activities a
radical change is brought about by 2016 Act by  excluding
educational   institutions   run   by   statutory   university   or   by
16

charitable   institutions.   It   is   submitted   that   either   it   is   a
case   of   Casus   Omissus   or   a   case   of   bad   drafting   of   2016
Act. 
6.12 It   is   submitted   that   1958   Act   clearly   indicates   that   it   was
the   policy   of   the   legislature   to   exclude   the   educational
activities run by specified entities from imposition of duty.
There is nothing in the 2016 Act which would indicate that
there   is   a   radical   departure   in   respect   of   educational
activities.   Some   of   the   activities   which   are   not   subject   to
imposition  of  duty  both   under  the   1958  Act  and  2016  Act
are   commercial   in   nature.   It   is   submitted   that   therefore   if
that   be   so   then   why   the   legislature   would   depart   from   its
earlier   policy   in   respect   of   educational   activities   as
promotion of education is in public interest. It is submitted
that   if   the   commercial   activities   are   not   subject   to
imposition   of   duty   then   it   would   be   unreasonable   on   the
part   of   the   legislature   to   impose   duty   on   non­commercial
activity   of   imparting   education.   It   is   submitted   that   policy
of   the   legislature   is   presumed   to   be   reasonable   so   that   it
17

does   not   fall   foul   principle   of   unreasonableness   or
arbitrariness. 
       
6.13 Lastly,   it   is   submitted   by   Shri   Naphade   learned   Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, that in
the   present   case   the   doctrine   of   last   antecedent   may   also
be   applied.   It   is   submitted   that   first   part   of   Section   3(2)
covers   all   educational   activities   irrespective   of   the   entity
which carries on such activities. It is submitted that in the
1958 Act in Section 3(2), the following words used are “for
the   purposes   of   or   in   respect   of   school   …….   Students
hostel”   and   in   the   second   part   of   Section   3(2)   deals   with
activities carried on by the local authorities. It is submitted
that   in   the   2016   Act,   the   expression   “Run   by   any   local
bodies……State   of   Maharashtra”   does   not   qualify   the
educational   activities   but   it   qualifies   activities   namely
“Hospitals,   nursing   homes…….a   part   of   system”.   It   is
submitted that if the doctrine of Last Antecedent is applied
to the present case, the only possible conclusion is that the
expression   “Run   by   any   local   bodies”   does   not   qualify
educational activities referred to in first part of Section 3(2)
but qualifies the second part i.e. the other activities.
18

6.14 It is further submitted that Electricity Duty Act is a taxing
statute. Therefore, it must be strictly construed and if there
is   any   ambiguity   the   same   must   be   resolved   in   favour   of
the   assessee.   The   legislature   is   covering   all   educational
activities   in   one   provision   contained   in   Section   3(2)(iii)
irrespective   of   the   entity   which   carries   on   the   activities.
While   doing   so   the   ambiguity   has   crept   in   drafting.   It   is
submitted that the benefit of ambiguity must lean in favour
of the assessee rather than the revenue.                     
6.15 Making the above submissions and relying on the decisions
of this Court, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal. 
7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respective parties at length.
8. The short question which is posed for the consideration of
this   Court   is   whether   the   original   writ   petitioners   being
charitable   education   institutions   registered   under   the
provisions of the Public Trusts Act (the Maharashtra Public
Trusts   Act,   1950)   are   entitled   to   the   exemption   from
19

payment of electricity  duty  post 01.09.2016 i.e. as per  the
provisions of the Maharashtra Electricity Duty Act, 2016? 
9. While answering the aforesaid question/issue, law on how
to interpret and/or consider the statutory provisions in the
taxing   statute   and   the   exemption   notifications   is   required
to be analysed first.
9.1 In the case of   Dilip Kumar & Company   (supra), five­judge
bench of this Court has held that in every taxing statute ––
the charging, the computation and exemption provisions at
the   threshold   stage   should   be   interpreted   strictly.   In   case
of   ambiguity   in   case   of   charging   provision,   the   benefit
necessarily   must   go   into   favour   of   the   subject/assessee.
This means that the subject of tax, the person liable to pay
tax and the rate at which the tax is to be levied have to be
interpreted and construed strictly. If there is any ambiguity
in any of these three components, no tax can be levied till
the ambiguity or defect was removed by the legislature [See
pages  53 to   55  in   Dilip   Kumar   &   Company ]. However,  in
case   of   exemption   notification   or   clause,   same   is   to   be
allowed   based   wholly   by   the   language   of   the   notification,
20

and   exemption   cannot   be   gathered   by   necessary
implication,   or   on   a   construction   different   from   the   words
used   by   reference   to   the   object   and   purpose   of   granting
exemption   [See   Hansraj   Gordhandas   Vs.   H.H.   Dave,
Assistant Collector of Central Excise Customs, Surat &
Ors.,   AIR   1970   SC   755 ].   Further   it’s   for   the   assessee   to
show   by   construction   of   the   exemption  clause/notification
that   it   comes   within   the   purview   of   exemption.   The
assessee/citizen   cannot   rely   on   ambiguity   or   doubt   to
claim   benefit   of   exemption.   The   rationale   is   not   to   widen
the   ambit   at   the   stage   of   applicability.   However,   once   the
hurdle   is   crossed,   the   notification   is   constructed   liberally
[See   Collector   of   Central   Excise,   Bombay­I   &   Anr.   vs.
Parle   Exports   (P)   Ltd.,   (1989)   1   SCC   345   and   Union   of
India & Ors. vs. Wood Papers Ltd. & Anr., (1998) 4 SCC
256 ] .   Thus,   distinction   can   be   made   between   the
substantive   requirements   that   require   strict   compliance   –
non­compliance   of   which   would   render   the   assessee
ineligible   to   claim   exemption,   and   the   procedural   or
21

compliance   provision   which   can   be   interpreted   liberally
[See paragraphs 64 to 65 in  Dilip Kumar & Company ].
9.2 Essar Steel India Ltd. & Anr.  was a case relating to grant
of   exemption   under   Section   3(2)(vii)(a)   from   payment   of
electricity   duty   under   the   1958   Act.   The   court   relied   on
several decisions on interpretation of notification in nature
of   exemption,   to   hold   that   the   statutory   conditions   for
grant   of   exemption   can   neither   be   tinkered   with   nor
diluted. The exemption notification must be interpreted by
their own wordings, and where the wordings of notification
with   regard   the   construction   is   clear,   it   has   to   be   given
effect to. If on the wordings of the notification benefit is not
available,   then   the   court   would   not   grant   benefit   by
stretching the words of the notification or by adding words
to   the   notification.   To   interpret   the   exemption   notification
one should go by the clear, unambiguous wordings thereof.
These principles were applied in   Essar Steel  India Ltd. &
Anr.   to   deny   benefit   of  Section   3(2)(vii)(a)   of   the   1958   Act,
as   the   condition   of   generating   energy   jointly   with   another
undertaking was not fulfilled.
22

9.3 In   case   of   Star   Industries ,   it   was   held   that   the   eligibility
criteria   laid   down   for   exemption   notification   is   required   to
be   construed   strictly,   and   once   it   is   found   that   applicant
satisfies   the   same,   the   exemption   notification   should   be
construed   liberally.   Reference   was   made   to   the   decision
Novopan   India   Ltd.   vs.   CCE   and   Customs,   1994   Supp
(3)   SCC   606   and   the   Constitution   Bench   decision   in
Hansraj   Gordhandas   vs.   H.H.   Dave,   Assistant   Collector
of   Central   Excise   Customs,   Surat   &   Ors.   (supra),   which
decisions have been noted and elucidated by this Court in
Dilip   Kumar   &   Company .   Therefore,   in   the   context   of
exemption   notification   there   is   no   new   room   for
intendment.   Regard   must   be   to   the   clear   meaning   of   the
words.   Claim   to   exemption   is   governed   wholly   by   the
language of the notification, which means by plain terms of
the exemption  clause. An assessee cannot  claim  benefit  of
exemption,   on   the   principle   that   in   case   of   ambiguity   a
taxing   statue   must   be   construed   in   his   favour,   for   an
exception   or   exemption   provision   must   be   construed
strictly.
23

9.4 In the case of   Giridhar G. Yadalam   (supra), it is observed
and  held  that   in  taxing   statute,  it  is the   plain  language  of
the   provision   that   has   to   be   preferred   where   language   is
plain   and   is   capable   of   one   definite   meaning.   It   is   further
observed   that   the   strict   interpretation   to   the   exemption
provision   is   to   be   accorded.   It   is   observed   that   the
purposive   interpretation   can   be   given   only   when   there   is
some   ambiguity   in  the   language  of   the   statutory   provision
or   it   leads   to   absurd   results.   In   paragraph   16,   it   is
observed and held as under:­
“16.   We   have   already   pointed   out   that   on   the
plain   language   of   the   provision   in   question,   the
benefit   of   the   said   clause   would   be   applicable
only   in   respect   of   the   building   “which   has   been
constructed”.   The   expression   “has   been
constructed”   obviously   cannot   include   within   its
sweep   a   building   which   is   not   fully   constructed
or   in   the   process   of   construction.   The   opening
words of clause ( ii ) also become important in this
behalf, where it is stated that “the land occupied
by   any   building”.   The   land   cannot   be   treated   to
be   occupied  by   a   building   where   it   is   still  under
construction.   If   the   contention   of   Mr   Jain   is
accepted,   an   assessee   would   become   entitled   to
the   benefit   of   the   said   clause,   at   that   very
moment,   the   commencement   of   construction
even   with   construction   the   moment   one   brick   is
laid.   It   would   be   too   far­fetched,   in   such   a
situation,   to   say   that   the   land   stands   occupied
by a building that has been constructed thereon.
24

Even Mr Jain was candid in accepting that when
the  construction  of building  is still going  on  and
is   not   completed,   literally   speaking,   it   cannot  be
said that  the building   “has been  constructed”. It
is   for   this   reason   that   he   wanted   us   to   give   the
benefit   of   this   provision   even   in   such   cases   by
reading   the   expression   to   mean   the   same   as   “is
being constructed”. His submission was that the
moment   construction   starts   the   urban   land   is
put to “productive use” and that entitles the land
from   exemption   of   wealth   tax.   This   argument   of
giving   so­called   purposive   interpretation   has   to
be rejected for more than one reasons. These are:
( i ) In taxing statute, it is the plain language of the
provision   that   has   to   be   preferred   where
language   is   plain   and   is   capable   of   one   definite
meaning.
( ii )   Strict   interpretation   to   the   exemption
provision  is to  be accorded,  which  is the  case  at
hand.
( iii )   The   purposive   interpretation   can   be   given
only   when   there   is   some   ambiguity   in   the
language of the  statutory  provision  or  it  leads to
absurd results. We do not  find  it to be so  in the
present case.”
 
9.5 In the case of   Godrej  & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd.   (supra), it is
observed   and   held   by   this   Court   that   where   the   words   of
the statute are clear and unambiguous, recourse cannot be
had   to   principles   of   interpretation   other   than   the   literal
view. It is further observed that it is the bounden duty and
obligation of the court to interpret the statute as it is. It is
25

further   observed   that   it   is   contrary   to   all   rules   of
construction   to   read   words   into   a   statute   which   the
legislature in its wisdom has deliberately not incorporated.
10. Applying   the   law   laid   down   by   this   Court   in   the   aforesaid
decisions to the facts of the case on hand, it is required to
be considered whether post 01.09.2016 and on coming into
force   the   2016   Act,   still,   the   writ   petitioners   –   charitable
education   institutions   registered   under   the   Public   Trusts
Act and or the Societies Registration Act are entitled to the
exemption from payment of electricity duty?
11. For   the   aforesaid   purpose,   the   charging
sections/exemption   provisions   under   the   pre   Act   of   2016
and post Act of 2016 are required to be referred to. Section
3 of the Maharashtra Electricity Duty Act, 1958, which was
applicable   prior   to   coming   into   force   of   the   Maharashtra
Electricity   Duty   Act,   2016,   relevant   for   our   purpose   reads
as under:­
“ 3 .   (1)   Subject   to   the   provisions   of   sub­section
(2),   there   shall   be   levied   and   paid   to   the   State
Government   on   the   1[consumption   charges   or
the]   units   of   energy   consumed   (excluding   losses
of   energy   sustained   in   transmission   and
26

transformation   by   a   licensee   before   supply   to   a
consumer),   a   duty   (hereinafter   referred   to   as"
electricity   duty")   at   the   rates   specified   in   the
Schedule to this Act. 
(2) (a) Electricity duty shall not be leviable on the
3[consumption   charges   or   the]   units   of   energy
consumed,— 
(i)   by   the   Government   of   Maharashtra   (save   in
respect   of   premises   used   for   residential
purposes); 
(ia)   by   or   in   a   respect   of   any   municipal
corporation,   municipality,   municipal   committee,
town   committee,   notified   area   committee,
Cantonment   Board,   Zilla   Parishad   or   village
panchyat constituted under any law for the time
being in force in the State, for the purpose of, or
in   respect   of   5
[   a   school   or   college   imparting
education   or   training   in   academic   or   technical
subjects,   a   hospital,   nursing   home,   dispensary,
clinic,   public   street   lighting,   public   water   works
and   system   of   public   sewers   or   drains   (save   in
respect   of   premises   used   for   residential
purposes); 
(ib)   by   any   licensee   for   purposes   directly
connected   with   construction,   maintenance   or
operation   of   any   generating,   transmitting   and
distributing system of the licensee;  
(ii)   by   a   tramway   company,   save   in   respect   of
premises   used   for   residential   and   office
purposes; 
(iii)   by   or   in   respect   of   any   statutory   University
and   institutions   run   by   the   statutory   University
for   the   purpose   of   or   in   respect   of   education,
research   and   training   (save   in   respect   of
premises used for residential purposes); 
27

(iiia)   by   or   in   respect   of   charitable   institution
registered   under   the   Bombay   Public   Trusts   Act,
1950, for the purpose of, or in respect of, school
or   college   imparting   education   or   training   in
academic or technical subjects (save in respect of
premises used for residential purposes);”
That thereafter the Maharashtra Electricity Duty Act, 2016
has   been   enacted,   which   has   come   into   effect   from
08.08.2016.   Section   3   of   the   2016   Act,   relevant   for   our
purpose reads as under:­   
“3.   (1)   Subject   to   the   provisions   of   sub­section
(2),   there   shall   be   levied   and   paid   to   the   State
Government, on the consumption charges or the
units   of   energy   consumed,   a   duty   (hereinafter
referred   to   as   “Electricity   Duty”)   at   the   rates
classified   as   per   the   Tariff   Schedule   of   the
Commission,   from   time   to   time,   on   the   basis   of
use   of   the   premises   by   the   consumer   on   whose
name   energy   is   supplied   by   the   licensee,   or   a
consumer   who   is   consuming   energy   produced
from   an   independent   source   other   than   that
supplied   by   the   licensee,   for   his   own   use   as
specified   in   the   Schedules,   which   are   based   on
the following classifications :––
(a)   the   consumption   charges   where   energy   is
supplied by the licensee;
Explanation.––   For   the   purpose   of   this   sub­
section,  “use  of  the  premises  by  the   consumer
on whose name energy  is supplied” means the
basis   of   purpose   for   which   the   consumer   in
whose   name   supply   has   been   released   and
measured   by   the   meter   installed   at   point   of
supply   by   the   licensee,   on   which   the
consumption   charges   are   billed   as   per   the
28

tariff,   however,   in   huge   industrial   parks,
commercial premises or malls where electricity
is   supplied   at   single   point   or   as   bulk
consumers   and   further   it   is   re­distributed   as
one of the utility service provided by the owner
of the premises to the end users occupying the
area   on   lease   or   rent   or   otherwise,   whose
purpose   of   use   of   electricity   at   the   user’s   end
may vary categorically;
(b)  units   of   energy   consumed  by   a   person  and
energy produced through the– 
(i) Captive generation; 
(ii) Co­generation;
(iii) Standby generation; 
(iv) Renewable Energy; or 
(v) Independent Power Producer (IPP);
(c)   units   of   energy   consumed   which   are   not
covered under clauses (a) and (b), that is, open
access or other sources.
(2)   Electricity   duty   shall   not   be   levied   on   the
consumption charges or energy consumed,––
(i)   by   the   State   Government   excluding   the
public undertakings; 
(ii)   by   the   Central   Government   excluding   the
public undertakings; 
(iii)   for   the   purposes   of,   or   in   respect   of   a
school   or   college   or   institution   imparting
education   or   training,   student’s,   hostels,
hospitals, nursing homes, dispensaries, clinics,
public   streets   lighting,   public   water   works,
sewerage   systems,   public   gardens   including
zoos,   public   museums,   administrative   offices
forming whole or, as the case may be, a part of
system   run   by   any   local   bodies   constituted
29

under any law for the time being in force in the
State of Maharashtra; 
(iv) by the Government hostels; 
(v)   by   any   licensee,   or   by   any   other   person
engaged in the business of supplying electricity
to   the   public   under   the   Electricity   Act,   for   the
purposes directly connected with construction,
maintenance,   operation   of   any   transmitting
and   distributing   system,   including   the   losses
incurred therein;”
11.1 As per Section 16 of the 2016 Act, on coming into force the
2016 Act, the Maharashtra Electricity Duty Act, 1958 stood
repealed   subject   to   the   eventualities   mentioned   in   Section
16   of   the   2016   Act.   None   of   the   eventuality   mentioned   in
proviso   to   Section   16   shall   be   attracted   and/or   applicable
to   the   facts   of   the   case   on   hand   in   view   of   the   specific
provisions   providing   for   exemption   from   payment   of   the
electricity   duty   as   per   sub­section   (2)   of   Section   3   of   the
2016   Act.     Therefore,   for   the   purpose   of   exemption   from
payment   of   electricity   duty   on   and   after   01.09.2016,   sub­
section   (2)   of   Section   3   of   the   2016   Act   shall   have   to   be
applied and shall be applicable. 
11.2 As   per   sub­section   (2)   of   Section   3   of   the   1958   Act,   the
electricity   duty   was   not   leviable   on   the   consumption
30

charges  or   the  units  of  energy  consumed…………..by  or   in
respect   of   charitable   institution   registered   under   the
Bombay   Public  Trusts  Act,  1950,  for   the   purpose   of,  or  in
respect of, school or college imparting education or training
in   academic   or   technical   subjects   (save   in   respect   of
premises   used   for   residential   purposes)   [Section   3(2)(iiia)].
Therefore, under the 1958 Act, the electricity duty was not
leviable on the consumption charges or the units of energy
consumed by or in respect of charitable institutions for the
purpose; in respect of school or college imparting education
or   training   in   academic  or  technical  subjects.  Even  as   per
Section 3(2)(ia), electricity duty shall not be leviable on the
consumption   charges   or   the   units   of   energy   consumed   by
or in a respect of any municipal corporation, municipality,
municipal   committee,   town   committee,   notified   area
committee,   Cantonment   Board,   Zilla   Parishad   or   village
panchyat   constituted   under   any   law   for   the   time   being   in
force   in   the   State,   for   the   purpose   of,   or   in   respect   of   a
school   or   college   imparting   education   or   training   in
academic   or   technical   subjects,   a   hospital,   nursing   home,
dispensary,   clinic,   public   street   lighting,   public   water
31

works   and   system   of   public   sewers   or   drains   (save   in
respect of premises used for residential purposes. 
11.3 However,   there   are   material   changes   under   the   2016   Act.
As   per   Section   3(2)   of   the   2016   Act,   even   the   public
undertakings   are   liable   to   pay   the   electricity   duty.   As   per
Section   3(2)(iii),   electricity   duty   is   not   leviable   on   the
consumption   charges   or   energy   consumed,   for   the
purposes   of,   or   in   respect   of   a   school   or   college   or
institution   imparting   education   or   training,   student’s,
hostels,   hospitals,   nursing   homes,   dispensaries,   clinics,
public   streets   lighting,   public   water   works,   sewerage
systems,   public   gardens   including   zoos,   public   museums,
administrative   offices   forming   whole   or,   as   the   case   may
be,   a   part   of   system   run   by   any   local   bodies   constituted
under   any   law   for   the   time   being   in   force   in   the   State   of
Maharashtra. Therefore, Section 3(2)(iiia), which was there
in 1958 Act, is now conspicuously and deliberately absent
in Section 3(2) of the 2016 Act.   
11.4 On   true   interpretation   of   Section   3(2)(iii),   under   2016   Act,
electricity   duty   on   the   consumption   of   charges   or   energy
32

consumed for  the purposes of, or in respect of a school or
college   or   institution   imparting   education   or   training,
student’s,   hostels………….run   by   any   local   bodies   shall
alone   be   exempted   from   levy   of   electricity   duty   and   the
State   Government   and   Central   Government   are   also
specifically   excluded   from   payment   of   electricity   duty.
However, the public sector  undertakings are not exempted
from   payment   of   electricity   Act.   Therefore,   under   Section
3(2) of the 2016 Act, the charitable institutions running the
educational institutions are not exempted from payment of
electricity   duty,   which   as   such   was   specifically   exempted
under   Section  3(2)(iiia)   of  the   1958   Act.  The  language   and
words   used   in   Section   3(2)   are   plain   and   simple   and   are
capable   of   only   one   definite   meaning   that   there   is   no
exemption   provided   under   the   2016   Act   from   levy     of
electricity   duty   so   far   as   the   charitable   education
institutions   are   concerned.   As   observed   herein   above,
where   the   words   are   clear   and   unambiguous,   recourse
cannot be had to principles of interpretation other than the
literal   view.   As   observed   hereinabove,   the   exemption
provision   need   to   be   interpreted   literally   and   when   the
33

language used in  exemption  provision  is simple,  clear  and
unambiguous,   the   same   has   to   be   applied   rigorously,
strictly   and   literally.   Under   the   2016   Act,   charitable
education   institutions   running   the   schools   or   colleges   are
specifically excluded from the exemption clause/exemption
provision – Section 3(2). 
12. If the submissions on behalf of the original writ petitioners
is   accepted   that   as   per   Section   3(2)(iii),   with   respect   to   all
the schools/colleges or institutions, imparting education or
training,  the   electricity   duty   is  not   leviable,  in   that  case  it
would lead to absurd result. In that case, even the private
hospitals,   nursing   homes,   dispensaries   and   clinics,   who
are   profit   making   entities   shall   also   claim   the   exemption
from levy of electricity duty. The intention of the legislature
as   per   Section   3(2)   of   the   2016   Act,   is   very   clear   and
unambiguous that the electricity duty shall not be leviable
on the consumption charges or energy consumed (i) by the
State   Government   excluding   the   public   sector
undertakings;   (ii)   by   the   Central   Government   excluding
public   sector   undertakings   and   (iii)   …….   run   by   the   local
34

bodies   constituted   under   any   law   for   the   time   being   in
force   in   the   State   of   Maharashtra.   Other   than   the   State
Government, Central Government and the local bodies and
the   Government   hostels,   no   exemption   from   payment   of
electricity duty has been provided.    
13. In view of the above findings recorded hereinabove, there is
no question of applying the doctrine of Last Antecedents as
canvassed   by   Shri   Naphade,   learned   Senior   Advocate,
appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners.       
14. In   that   view   of   the   above   the   original   writ   petitioners   –
charitable   education   institutions   registered   under   the
provisions   of   the   Societies   Registration   Act   and/or   under
the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, are not entitled to any
exemption   from   levy/payment   of   the   electricity   duty   on   or
after   08.08.2016   i.e.   from   the   date   on   which   the
Maharashtra   Electricity   Duty   Act,   2016   came   into   effect.
Therefore,   the   High   Court   has   committed   a   grave   error   in
setting   aside   the   levy   of   electricity   duty   levied   on   the
original   writ   petitioners   –   respondents   No.1   to   10   herein.
The   impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High
35

Court  is  unsustainable   both,   on   law  and   on   facts  and  the
same deserves to be dismissed.
15. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present   Appeal   Succeeds.   The   impugned   judgment   and
order   dated   28.02.2019   passed   by   the  High   Court   in   W.P.
No.2961 of 2018, is hereby quashed and set aside and it is
held that the original writ petitioners – respondents No.1 to
10   herein   –   charitable   education   institutions   registered
under   the   Societies   Registration   Act   and   the   Maharashtra
Public   Trusts   Act,   are   not   exempt   from   levy/payment   of
electricity   duty   levied   on   the   consumption   charges   or   the
energy consumed even with respect to the properties used
by such charitable education institutions for the purpose of
or   in   respect   of   the   school/college   imparting   education   or
training   in   academic   or   technical   subjects.   The   present
Appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to
costs.              
…………………………………J.
                (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
 (SANJIV KHANNA)
New Delhi, 
January 07, 2022.
36