State Legislature Lacks Competence to Levy Water Tax on the Generation of Electricity

The Uttarakhand State Legislature enacted "The Uttarakhand Water Tax on Electricity Generation Act, 2012," which sought to levy a tax on the drawal of water for the purpose of electricity generation

Several hydropower companies challenged the Act’s constitutional validity, arguing it was a colorable exercise of power to tax electricity generation, a field they claimed the State lacked competence in

A Division Bench of the High Court delivered a split verdict in 2023: one judge upheld the Act while the other struck it down as ultra vires

Consequently, the matter was referred to a third judge (Justice Alok Kumar Verma) for a majority opinion on the point of difference

The Court applied the "Doctrine of Pith and Substance" to determine the true nature of the levy, distinguishing it from the "measure of tax"

Taxation is a distinct subject from general legislative entries (e.g., Entry 17 List II regarding water power), and power to tax cannot be inferred from a non-taxing entry

The Court cited State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. regarding the separation of taxing and general entries

Essential legislative functions, such as fixing the rate of tax or establishing policy guidelines, cannot be abdicated to the executive

There can be no "promissory estoppel against the legislature" or against the exercise of legislative functions, as held in M/s Hero Motocorp Ltd. v. Union of India

The Court analyzed the charging sections (Sections 2(f), 2(i), and 12) and concluded that since the tax is only triggered when water is drawn for electricity generation, the taxable event is effectively the generation of electricity

The Court rejected the State's argument that the tax was on "land" (Entry 49) or "minerals" (Entry 50), stating that water does not fall under these specific taxing heads in this context, nor does Article 288 serve as a source of legislative power

Furthermore, the Court found Section 17 of the Act unconstitutional because it granted the executive "naked delegation of power" to fix rates without a statutory ceiling or policy guidance, thus failing the test of valid delegation

Regarding Promissory Estoppel, the Court reasoned that the State Government's contractual promises cannot interdict the State Legislature's sovereign power to enact laws

The State Legislature lacked competence to levy a tax on electricity generation and that Section 17 involved excessive delegation; however, the plea of Promissory Estoppel was rejected, as the doctrine cannot be invoked against the legislature