1 2025:CGHC:46695-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 653 of 2025 M/s Godawari Power And Ispat Ltd. Ts Registe5red Office At 428/2, Siltara Industrial Area, Phase-1, Siltara Raipur, Dist Raipur, C.G. Through Its Authorized Signatory. (Petitioner) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through its Secretary, Deptt Of Industries, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Present Address Being - Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur C.G. (Respondent No. 1) 2. The Chief Electrical Inspector State Of C.G, 36/437, 1st Floor, Bairan Bazar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 2) 3. The Superintending Engineer Office Of Chief Electrical Inspector, State Of Chhattisgarh, 36/437, 1st Floor, Bairan Bazar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 3) 4. The Senior Account Officer C.G. State Power Distribution Company Ltd, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 4) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.09.12 18:03:22 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 12 .09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel for the appellant, as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State, and Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 4 on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in the application. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is allowed and delay of 127 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The present intra-Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 02.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 1251 of 2013 (M/s Godawari Power and Ispat Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 428/2, Siltara Industrial Area, Phase-I, 3 Siltara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, and operating an iron ore crusher plant at Village Gidhali, P.O. Kusumkasa, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that for the purpose of crushing iron ore, the appellant established an iron ore crusher at Village Gidhali, for which a licence to work a factory was issued by the Department of Industries. The appellant commenced commercial production on 13.06.2009, and a certificate of commencement of production was issued by the District Trade & Industries Centre, Durg. The unit is thus registered as a ‘factory’ and is neither a mine nor a cement industry. It is further submitted that the distribution licensee, namely Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPDCL), entered into agreements with the appellant for supply of electricity under the tariff category “Other Industries” and not under HV-2 specified for mines and cement industries. However, respondents imposed electricity duty @ 40% treating the appellant’s crusher plant as a ‘mine’ within the meaning of the Mines Act, 1952. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that vide the Chhattisgarh Electricity Duty (Amendment) Act, 1995, Section 3 of the parent Act was amended and the rate of duty substituted. For mines (other than captive mines of cement industry) the rate of electricity duty was fixed at 40% per unit, while for other industries not covered in any specific category the rate is 8% per unit. Explanation (b) appended thereto provides that “mine” means a mine to which the Mines Act, 1952 4 applies and includes premises or machinery situated in or adjacent to a mine and used for crushing, processing, treating or transporting minerals. It is urged that under the Mines Act also, the primary condition for an establishment to qualify as a mine is that excavation or operation for obtaining minerals is being carried on. Since the appellant’s unit is only a crushing unit where ore is brought from different mines, crushed to requisite sizes and dispatched, it neither undertakes mining operations at its site nor is situated adjacent to a mine. Hence, it cannot be treated as a mine. 7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that CSPDCL itself classified the appellant’s unit under “Iron Ore Crushing & Screening Plant” falling in the category of “Other Industries” as per Schedule 3.1. Vide letter No. 1091 dated 18.07.2012, the Senior Accounts Officer, CSPDCL, Durg (respondent No. 4) recommended to respondent No. 2 that electricity duty applicable to the appellant should be revised from 40% to 8%. However, vide letter No. 945 dated 01.08.2012, respondent No. 3 directed respondent No. 4 to levy duty @ 40% treating the appellant’s unit as a ‘mine’. The appellant made a detailed representation on 07.06.2013 to respondent No. 2 seeking application of the correct rate of duty @ 8% under the Chhattisgarh Electricity Duty Act, 1949. By communication dated 19.06.2013, respondent No. 3 rejected the representation relying on Explanation (b) of the 1995 Amendment Act and upheld levy of electricity duty @ 40%. Aggrieved, the appellant filed WPC No. 1251 of 2013, which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 02.01.2025. 5 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge failed to adopt the settled principle that taxing statutes are to be construed strictly. The definition of ‘mine’ being definite and precise cannot be expanded to cover a factory situated 50 km away from any excavation site. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 4 support the order of the learned Single Judge and submit that no interference is warranted. 10. The State counsel further submits that typically mine operators establish crushing units adjacent to the mine itself. Merely because the appellant chose to install the plant 50 km away, it does not lose its character as an ancillary to mining operations. It is argued that Section 2(1)(j) of the Mines Act, 1952 specifically includes within the definition of “mine” power stations, transformer substations, converter stations and other premises in or adjacent to a mine carrying out ancillary processes. Hence, the appellant’s plant, though located at a distance, falls within the broader meaning of “mine”. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Vandey Matram Gittinirman (M/s) vs. M.P. Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. & Ors, reported in 2020 SCC Online MP 1964 considered the scope of the word “mine” and also the expression “adjacent”. In para 16 it held that the intent of the Legislature was not to include activities carried out 6 away from the mine within the meaning of “mine” under the Electricity Duty Act. In para 21 it explained that the word “adjacent” means lying near or close to, but not necessarily touching, and cannot be restricted only to adjoining or abutting areas. 13. Section 2(1)(j) of the Mines Act, 1952 defines “mine” in wide terms to include not only excavations but also various premises, machinery, workshops, stores, and ancillary processes in or adjacent to and belonging to a mine. 14. In the present case, iron ore is admittedly excavated by the appellant from its mining lease area. It is the appellant’s case that the crushing unit could not be established adjacent to the mine due to law and order problems in the naxal-affected area, and therefore, it was set up 50 km away at Village Gidhali. 15. Under the Chhattisgarh Electricity Duty (Amendment) Act, 1995, the rate of duty for mines (other than captive mines of cement industry) is 40%, whereas for “other industries” it is 8%. Explanation (b) therein defines “mine” by reference to the Mines Act, 1952. Thus, applicability of the rate depends on whether the appellant’s plant falls within the definition of “mine”. 16. The definition of “mine” under the 1952 Act includes premises or machinery situated in or adjacent to a mine and used for crushing, processing or treating minerals. The expression “adjacent”, as held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Vandey Matram Gittinirman (supra), includes nearby or neighbouring places and cannot be confined 7 to adjoining areas. 17. In light of the above, the appellant’s iron ore crushing plant, though located 50 km away, is directly linked to and ancillary to the mining operations undertaken by the appellant. Therefore, it falls within the extended meaning of “mine” under the statutory scheme. 18. The appellant could have installed the crushing plant within or adjacent to the mine premises, but it voluntarily chose to shift it 50 km away. Therefore, it cannot claim the benefit of the lower duty rate of 8%. Respondent No. 4 has rightly issued order dated 19.06.2013. No case for interference is made out. 19. On overall consideration, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the legal position and has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 20. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan