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

A batch of Special Appeals and a Writ Petition were filed challenging the constitutional validity of "The Uttarakhand Water Tax on Electricity Generation Act, 2012"

The Act seeks to levy a tax on the drawal of water from any source within the State for electricity generation

A Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a split verdict on October 25, 2023: one Judge upheld the Act as a tax on water consumption, while the other struck it down as an ultra vires tax on electricity generation

Consequently, the matter was referred to a third judge for a majority opinion

The Appellants, including power corporations like THDC and NHPC, argued that the State lacks legislative competence to tax electricity generation and that the Act violates prior implementation agreements

Doctrine of Pith and Substance to determine the true nature of the levy, distinguishing between the subject of the tax and its measure

Article 246 regarding the distribution of legislative fields and the principle from State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. that taxing powers are distinct from general legislative entries and cannot be derived from them by implication

Entries 17, 18, 45, 49, and 50 of List II, noting that "Land" or "Mineral Rights" cannot be stretched to include water for the purpose of taxing electricity generation

Doctrine of Excessive Delegation, which prohibits the legislature from abdicating essential legislative functions, such as fixing tax rates, without providing sufficient policy guidelines or limits

Promissory Estoppel: estoppel cannot operate against the legislature in the exercise of its legislative functions

The Court analyzed the charging sections of the Act, specifically Sections 2(f), 2(i), and 12, and concluded that the taxable event is not mere drawal of water, but drawal specifically for "generation of electricity"

Under the doctrine of pith and substance, the Court found that the tax is effectively on electricity units produced, which falls outside the State’s taxing domain in List II

Regarding legislative competence, the Court rejected the State's reliance on Entry 49 (Taxes on land) and Entry 50 (Mineral rights), ruling that water used for power generation does not constitute "land" as a unit for taxation, nor is the tax a "mineral cess" as per the restricted interpretation of Ichchapur Industrial Cooperative Society Ltd.

On delegation, the Court observed that Section 17 allows the State Government to "vary" rates at its whim without any statutory ceiling or guidance, amounting to "naked delegation"

the Court sided with the State on the issue of promissory estoppel, reasoning that executive agreements cannot bind the sovereign legislative power to enact tax laws

the tax is in reality a tax on electricity generation, for which the State has no legislative competence

Section 17 is void due to excessive delegation of power

while the plea of promissory estoppel fails against the legislature, the Act itself cannot stand. The opinion concurs with brother Justice Ravindra Maithani, J., striking down the Act