State Legislature lacks competence to tax electricity generation; levy on water drawal held ultra vires.

The appellants, comprising various hydroelectric power generating companies (both public and private), challenged the constitutional validity of "The Uttarakhand Water Tax on Electricity Generation Act, 2012".

The Act seeks to levy a "water tax" on users drawing water from sources within the State for electricity generation.

Upon appeal, a Division Bench delivered a split verdict on October 25, 2023: the Chief Justice upheld the Act, while Justice Ravindra Maithani struck it down as ultra vires.

The matter was subsequently referred to Justice Alok Kumar Verma for a tie-breaking opinion.

Primary Rule of Literal Interpretation: the intention of the legislature must be found in the words used.

Doctrine of Pith and Substance: determines the true nature of the tax regardless of its nomenclature.

Principle that taxation is a distinct matter from general subjects of legislation, requiring specific taxing entries (M.P.V. Sundararamier Co. vs. State of A.P.).

Application of Entry 49 List II regarding taxes on land (Union of India vs. H.S. Dhillon).

Article 265: Constitutional mandate requiring the "authority of law" for any tax levy.

Delegation Rule: Essential legislative functions, such as fixing tax rates without policy guidelines or limits, cannot be abdicated to the executive.

Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel: There is no promissory estoppel against the legislature in the exercise of its legislative functions.

The Court analyzed the charging sections of the Act (Sections 12 and 17) and the definition of "User" (Section 2(f)), concluding that since the tax is only triggered when water is drawn specifically for electricity generation, the taxable event is the generation itself, not the mere drawal of water.

The Court rejected the State's reliance on Entry 49 (land) and Entry 50 (mineral rights) of List II, noting that water is not "land" for the purpose of a unit-based property tax, nor is it a "mineral" in a universal sense beyond specific statutory fictions.

The Court observed that Article 288 is an enabling/saving provision and not a source of legislative competence.

Regarding Section 17, the Court found "naked delegation" because the Act provides no minimum or maximum limits or policy guidelines for the State Government to fix tax rates, thus violating the constitutional restriction on excessive delegation.

The Court ruled that executive agreements cannot interdict the sovereign legislative power of the State to tax.

The Court held that the State Legislature lacks the competence to levy a tax on the generation of electricity under List II and that the delegation of rate-fixing power was unconstitutional.

The Act was struck down on the grounds of lack of legislative competence and excessive delegation, while the plea of Promissory Estoppel was rejected.