Summary
An industrial water consumer remained liable for statutory sewerage cess although it transported effluents by tanker to an intermediary treatment company rather than directly into the Board’s sewer. After partial treatment the effluents entered the Board’s system for transmission and further treatment. The exemption for premises not served by that system therefore did not apply. Separate treatment charges and contractual payments by the intermediary did not constitute double levy or displace the industry’s statutory liability.
Issues
- Whether indirect discharge through an intermediary treatment plant attracted sewerage cess despite absence of a direct pipeline.
- Whether treatment charges and sums paid by the intermediary to the Board constituted double levy.
Provisions considered
- Section 55 and its proviso, Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1989Applied to the bulk-water consumer whose effluents ultimately used the Board’s sewerage system; the proviso did not exempt such indirect use. (¶¶ 11–19, 25–27, 39)
- Rule 4, Sewerage RulesAuthorized charges for special treatment of industrial effluents according to their nature and treatment cost; payments under the intermediary’s agreement did not substitute for statutory cess. (¶ 36–38)
Held
- The industry consumed bulk water supplied by the Board and its partially treated effluents ultimately entered the Board’s sewer and treatment plant. Transport by tanker to JETL and absence of a direct pipeline did not bring it within the proviso excluding areas not served by the Board’s sewerage system. The intermediary agreement did not end that liability. (¶¶ 11–19, 23–27)
- Payments by the industry to JETL were contractual charges for preliminary treatment needed to meet discharge standards. JETL’s payments to the Board arose under its separate contractual arrangements and Rule 4 for transmission and further treatment. Neither payment replaced the industry’s Section 55 cess, and the double-levy objection failed. (¶ 30–39)
- Outstanding cess was payable within eight weeks with 6% interest from the dates it fell due. Failure to pay within that period attracted 12% interest thereafter. (¶ 40)
Result
Appeals dismissed; levy upheld, with directions for payment of arrears and interest.