State Legislature lacks competence to tax electricity generation; such levy cannot be derived from general legislative entries.

Various hydroelectric power corporations challenged the constitutional validity of "The Uttarakhand Water Tax on Electricity Generation Act, 2012."

A Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a split verdict on 25.10.2023: one judge upheld the Act, while the other struck it down as ultra vires.

The matter was referred to a third judge (Justice Alok Kumar Verma) under Chapter VIII Rule 3 of the High Court Rules.

The appellants argued they were promised exemptions from such taxes through Implementation Agreements (IA) and that the State lacked the legislative competence to tax electricity generation under the guise of a "water tax".

1. Whether the tax imposed by the Act is, in pith and substance, a tax on the drawal of water or a tax on the generation of electricity

2. Whether the State Legislature possesses the legislative competence to enact the Act under Entries 17, 18, 45, 49, or 50 of List II or Article 288 of the Constitution

3. Whether Section 17 of the Act suffers from the vice of excessive delegation by allowing the State Government to fix tax rates without legislative guidelines

4. Whether the State is barred by the doctrine of promissory estoppel from levying the tax due to prior contractual agreements

The Court applied the doctrine of "Pith and Substance" to determine the true nature of the levy, holding that the nomenclature of a tax is not conclusive of its validity.

It relied on the principle that taxation is a distinct matter from general subjects of legislation, such that power to tax cannot be inferred from general entries like Entry 17 (Water) or Entry 18 (Land) of List II [State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd.].

The Court applied Article 265, which mandates that taxes must be levied by the "authority of law" (legislative competence).

The doctrine of "Excessive Delegation," which prohibits the legislature from abdicating essential functions—like fixing tax rates—to the executive without policy guidelines [Union of India v. Mohit Minerals].

Regarding promissory estoppel, it followed the rule that there can be no estoppel against the exercise of legislative power [Hero Motocorp Ltd. v. Union of India].

Justice Verma analyzed the "charging section" (Section 17) and definitions (Sections 2(c), (f), and (i)) to conclude that the taxable event was not the mere drawal of water, but specifically the drawal for electricity generation.

He reasoned that since the tax is only triggered by electricity production, it is in pith and substance a tax on electricity generation, a field not available to State Legislatures under List II.

Regarding competence, the Court rejected the State's reliance on Entry 49 (Taxes on land) and Entry 50 (Mineral rights), noting that water used for power is not a separate unit of "land" nor was it declared a "mineral" for general taxing purposes.

The Court further found Section 17 to be a "naked delegation of power," as it provided no minimum/maximum limits or guidelines for the executive to fix tax rates.

However, the Court rejected the plea of promissory estoppel, clarifying that while the State Government signed the agreements, it could not bind the State Legislature's sovereign power to enact laws.

The tax is on electricity generation, which exceeds State competence.

Section 17 involves excessive delegation and is bad in law.

Promissory estoppel does not apply against the legislature.

Justice Verma concurred with Justice Maithani’s view that the Act be struck down, thereby forming the majority opinion.