Summary
The Court rejected charitable educational institutions’ claim to electricity-duty exemption under the Maharashtra Electricity Duty Act, 2016. The former Act expressly exempted eligible public-trust schools and colleges, but that category was deliberately absent from the replacement law. The local-body qualification in Section 3(2)(iii) also governed the educational institutions listed there. Courts could not restore the omitted exemption by implication, an asserted drafting error or the last-antecedent doctrine. The High Court’s exemption ruling was set aside.
Issues
- Whether charitable educational institutions retained the former electricity-duty exemption under the 2016 Act.
- Whether construction principles or repeal savings justified extending the local-body exemption to those institutions.
Provisions considered
- Section 3(2)(a)(iiia), Maharashtra Electricity Duty Act, 1958The former express exemption for qualifying public-trust educational institutions was contrasted with its absence from the replacement Act. (¶ 11-11.4)
- Section 3(2)(iii) and Section 16, Maharashtra Electricity Duty Act, 2016The relevant educational exemption required operation by local bodies; repeal savings did not preserve the claimed former exemption on these facts. (¶ 11.1-14)
Held
- The former Act expressly exempted specified charitable educational institutions. Its replacement materially changed the scheme and omitted that category. The plain text did not permit charitable institutions to claim continued exemption merely because they enjoyed it earlier. (¶ 11-11.4)
- The words concerning operation by local bodies qualified the listed schools, colleges and institutions as well as the other specified uses. The proposed interpretation extending exemption to all educational activities was rejected, as was reliance on the doctrine of last antecedent. (¶ 11.3-13)
- Eligibility for a tax exemption must be established from its language; ambiguity at that threshold does not favour the claimant. Courts cannot enlarge an unambiguous exemption by inserting words or relying on an assumed legislative purpose. This differs from ambiguity in the charging provision and from construing compliance requirements after eligibility is established. (¶ 9.1-9.5)
- The repeal-and-savings provision did not preserve the exemption claimed in the circumstances. The institutions were not exempt under the 2016 scheme, and the High Court erred in setting aside the duty demands on that basis. (¶¶ 11.1, 14)
Result
State appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; respondent charitable educational institutions held not exempt from electricity duty under the 2016 Act; no costs.