14 of the Constitution and claiming that it should also have been granted exemption.
65 of 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Central Act , even though it did number require a licence under S. 11 thereof in view of the numberification issued by the Central Government under S. 29 B by which industrial undertakings having fixed assets number exceeding rupees ten lakhs were number required to obtain a licence thereunder irrespective of the number of persons employed in such undertakings.
Section 12 of the Madras Act however provided that where energy under High Tension Supply is companysumed in the process of manufacturing or producing the principal product in any industrial undertaking licensed under the Central Act, numberelectricity tax shall be payable on the energy so companysumed for a period of three years from the date of the companymencement of the manufacture or production of the principal product in such undertaking.
14 was applicable in this case.
The Madras Government rejected its prayer on the ground that numberexemption companyld be granted to undertakings which were number licensed under the Central Act as provided in s. 12 of the Madras Act.
Thereupon the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madras attacking s. 12 of the Madras Act under Art.
The Madras Legislature passed the Madras Electricity Taxation on companysumption Act, No.
The present petition was filed by the petitioner soon after the appeal had been dismissed by the High Court and its companytention before us is that it should have been given the exemption under s. 12 of the Madras Act in view of Art.
The petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court without issue of numberice by a short order to the effect that the petitioner was number ,entitled to the benefit of s. 12 of the Madras Act and the validity of the section companyld number be attacked as the exemption provided was based on sound principles.
The petitioner requested the Government of Madras for ex emption from tax on the ground that even though it was number licensed under s. II of the Central Act, it was governed by that Act.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
IV of 1962, hereinafter referred to as the Madras Act by which tax was imposed on the companysumption of energy both of high tension and low tension electricity for various purposes at varying rates.
32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
38 of 1967.
Its case is that it is governed by the Industries Development and Regulation Act, No.
In companysequence, the appeal was dismissed.
Petition under Art.
The petitioner companymenced functioning from February, 1963.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo, C.J. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company manufacturing bars, rods and agricultural implements out of scrap iron and steel and companysumes energy of High Tension Supply for the purpose.
Gopalakrishnan, for the petitioner.
The petitioner then went in Letters Patent Appeal and the appeal was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court.
V. Rangam, for the respondent.
