Electricity bill

Document of electricity connection was at best a document that would entitle the department to recover the bill from the occupants and can never be taken to be the evidence of ownership of premises.

Petitioner was consumer of electricity company and filed civil suit for correction of his bill on plea that it was illegal and unlawful

Trial Court allowed interim injunction application and directed electricity company to restore connection of petitioner

Lower Appellate Court modified order passed by Trial Court on stay application

Validity

Matter before civil court did not relate to detection bill or theft of electricity or illegal abstraction of energy, rather matter was with regard to dishonest consumption of energy through manipulation of or tampering with metering equipment or other similar apparatus as well as matter related to meter or maximum demand indicator and other measuring apparatus supplied for ascertaining energy consumed at premises

High Court directed Trial Court to decide issue of jurisdiction and remanded matter for decision afresh

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Petitioner impugned order of Appellate Board of National Electric Power Regulatory Authority ("NEPRA") whereby petitioner was found liable to pay for arrears of electricity bill

Contention of petitioner, inter alia, was that petitioner was billed at a lower rate due to negligence of Electricity Company's officials, and such arrears could not be subsequently recovered

Validity

While officers of the Power Company were negligent in remitting the bill for a certain period on basis of certain rates which were not applicable, however the same did not absolve liability accruing against petitioner who was liable to discharge such liability

No period of limitation had been prescribed for the Power Company to initiate recovery proceedings and petitioner could not be permitted to take advantage of negligence of its officials and could not be unjustly enriched by the same

No legitimate expectation existed in favour of petitioner to urge that such arrears were not due from petitioner or that the same be waived

No illegality existed in the impugned order

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Electricity bills inclusive of whatsoever charges were added thereto have been made the yardstick, the standard and the measure for the purposes of collecting the advance which was liable to be adjusted as against the final liability of the taxpayer and if founded to be paid in excess, the refund in this behalf was contemplated to be made within a particular period of time.

Constitutional petition filed by appellants to declare the imposition of advance income tax or withholding tax on electricity bills harsh and unreasonable was dismissed by Single Bench of High Court

Contention of the appellants in intra-court appeal was that prior to amendment of S.235 of the Income Tax Ordinance through Finance Act, 2008 on 1-7-2008, Rs.2000 were being charged as withholding tax or advance income tax on the electricity bills amounting to Rs.20, 000 or more, however, the bills less than the said amount were chargeable on other percentage, but on account of the change brought in law, the percentage had incredibly been increased

Appellants further contended that withholding tax or advance income tax on electricity bills was a tax on expenditure, rather than the income and the matter did not fall within the Federal/Concurrent Legislative List and, therefore, the competence of the Parliament to impose said tax was confiscatory, harsh, unreasonable and amounted to a double taxation

Validity

Withholding tax or advance income tax was advance nature of the tax on income, which was permissible under the law; it was not a new concept (advance tax) to the income tax regime and was enforced as per the provisions of S.147 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Advance tax was ultimately founded upon and was embedded in the domain of the income

Advance tax or withholding tax squarely fell in Entry Number 47 of the Federal Legislative List, which had to be given widest possible meaning and amplitude and thus, on account of any misnomer of describing same as an expenditure could not be held to be beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament

Intra-Court appeals were dismissed.