# BABU RAM JAGDISH KUMAR & CO., ETC., ETC v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS., ETC., ETC - **Citation:** [1979] 3 S.C.R. 952 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1979-05-04 - **Bench:** N. L. Untwalia, R. S. Pathak, E. S. Venkataramiah - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/babu-ram-jagdish-kumar-co-etc-etc-v-state-of-punjab-ors-etc-etc-7828 - **Pages:** 20 ## Headnote c D E F G Puttjab Sales Tax Act, Legislatutc. If could delegate in Schedules to the A.ct. 1948-S. 31-Constitutional validity of-. po1ver to executire to add or delete anything Words &: Phrases "Taxable e~e1u" 1uui "taxablt· person''- ,\leaning of. Stion from payment of sales tax on the turnover of goods sold in favour of a manufacturer under the circumstances mentioned therein only to the seller and not to the boyer even though indirectly the buyer may be benefited thereby. [970A-F] (b) 1be terms "taxable goods", "taxable event" and "taxable person'' are three distinct concepts. In the instant case the "'taxable event" is the pur· chase of paddy and not its sale which alone attracts s. 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Acl ''Taxable person" i.e. the person liable to pay tax is the purchaser and not the seller. The appellants cannot complain that any e-xem.ption graated to them by the Act has been taken away. Even though the liability to pay purchase tax may be on the appellants, it is bound to, have repercussions on the price at which they buy paddy and the price at which rice manufactured by them out of that padey is sold by them. The tax payable under the Act being an indirect ta""\, the tax burden would ordinarily fall on the consumer of rice and not on any of the intermediaries including the appellants. The iinpugned notification cannot therefore, be treated as one issued against the policy of the statute. [970G-H, 971A-B] State of Tamil Nadu v. M. K. Kandaswanii, etc., i~tc., [1976] 1 SCR 38; referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JuRiso1cTJON : Civil Appeal No. 1028 of 1976. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 8-3-1976 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 354/75. AND CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1029-1032 OF 1976 Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 8-3-1976 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. Nos. 564 and 582/75 and C.W.P. Nos. 1988 and 2000/76 respectively. AND CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1033 OF 1976 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 31-5-1976 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W. Petition No. 2580/76. AND CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1034 OF 11976 o Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order 10-6-1976 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2890/76. i • ) • BABU RAM JAGDISI! & co. v. PUNJAB (Venkataramiah, J.) 955 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1035 OF 1976 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 28-6-1976 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction No. 3216 of 1976. M. C. IJhandare, A. K. Sen, (in CA 1029/76), Mrs. Sunanda Bhandare A. N. Karkhanis, Miss Malini Poduval and G. R. Sethi (in ' CA 1031/76). :~ Soli J. Sorabjee, Addi. Sol. Genl. ' ).._ Singh for the Respondents. (In CA 1028/76), Hardev ' 1 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J.-In these appeals by special leave, we are called upon to pronounce on the validity of section 31 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Notification dated the 13th January, 1968 issued thereunder by the Government of Punjab and the liability of the appellants to pay purchase tax under the Act in respect of the turnover relating to the purchases of paddy made by them during the relevant period. The appellants are dealers in paddy and engaged in the business of millers in the State of Punjab. They buy paddy from growers or katcha adatias, convert it into rice and sell rice. Most of the rice manufactured by them is purchased by the State Government under food procurement orders. A brief history of the relevant provisions of the Act is as follows :- Under the Act as it was originally enacted, there was no provision levying tax on the purchase turnover of the goods dealt with by a dealer as defined in the Act. The Act was amended by Punjab Act No. 7 of 1958 which received the assent of the Governor on April 18, 1~58 and the amending Act came into force at once. The amending Act brought about the following changes in the Act :- In the long title of the Act, after the word "sale" the wo d " ch " · d , r s or pur ase were mserte . Clause ( d) of section 2 of the Act whi h defined the expression 'dealer' was amended so as to bring with~n the scope of that expression a person who purchased any goods · the course of trade or business. The turnover relating to purchas~~ ?1ade by a deal~ subsequent to the commencement of the amendmg Act of certam goods was made liable to pa}'lllent of tax. The A B c D E F G H , 956 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 3 s.c.R. A word 'pm chase' was defined by clause (ff) of section 2 whi~h was introduced by the amending Act as follows :- "- B "2. (ff) 'purchase' wilih all its grnmmatical or cognate expressions, means the acquisition of goods other than sugarcane, foodgrains, and pulses for nse in the manufacture of goods for sale for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration otherwise than under a mortgage, hypothecation, charge or pledge.". . . . . . . . (The rest of the clause is not necessary for the purpose of these cases). <, Section 4 of the Act was amended by imposing t~x on pur r·.· chases also subject to sections 5 and 6 of the Act. It is, however,_,.( •. seen from clause (ff) of section 2 that the purchase of foodgrains c D E F was not covered by the definition and remained unaffected by the above amending Act. The Act was further amended by Punjab Act No. 13 of 1959 which deleted the words "other than sugarcane, foodgrains and pulses" in clause (ff) of section 2. Section 6 of the Act was repealed and substituted by a new section which read as follows :- "6. Tax free goods.-(!) No tax shall be payable on the sale of goods specified in the first column of Schedule C subject to the conditions and exceptions, if any, set out in the corresponding entry in the second column thereof and no dealer shall charge sales tax or purchase tax on the sale or purchase, as the case may be, of goods which are declared tax free from time to time under this section. (2) The State Government after giving by notification not less than three months' notice of its intention so to do may by like notification add to or delete from Schedule B or Schedule C and thereupon Schedule B or Schedule C, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be amended accordingly.'' It is seen from the above provision that the turnover relating to G the sale of goods mentioned in the first column of Schedule 'C' to the Act subject to the conditions and exceptions, if any, set out in the corresponding entry in the second column thereof was exempted from payment of tax. B By Punjab Act No. 24 of 1959, the above section 6 was substituted by a new section which read as follows :-- "6. Tax free goods.-(1) No tax shall be payable on the sale of goods SJ'.>~ified in the first column of Schedule B. • • ' • ( ' BABU RAM JAGDISH & co. v. PUNJAB (Venkataramiah, J.) 957 subject to the couditious and exceptiou, if any, set out in the corresponding entry in the second column thereo~ and no dealer shall charge sale tax on the sale of goods which are declared tax-free from time to time under this section. (2) The State Government after giving by notification not Jess than three months' notice of its intention so to do, may by like notification add to or delete from Schedule B and thereupon Schedule B shall be deemed to be amended accordingly." By Punjab Act No. 18 of 1960, clause (ff) of section 2 of the Act which had undergone some alteration when Punjab Act No. 24 of 1959 came into force was snbstituted by a new clause which read : "2. (ff) 'purchase', wtth all its grammatical or cognate expressions, means the acquisition of goods specified in Schedule C for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration otherwise than under a mortgage, hypothecation, charge or pledge." The effect of the said amendment was that the turnover relating to the purchase of goods mentioned in Schedule 'C' to the Act became liable to tax subject to the other provisions of the Act. Section 4 of the Act was also amended by the introduction of subsection (2-A) providing that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 4 of the Act, no tax on the sale of any goods should be levied if a tax on their purchase was payable under the Act. Originally seven items of goods had been specified by the State Legislature in Schedule 'C' to the Act. By the Punjab General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1965 (Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965) section 31 was inserted in the Act authorising the State Government to amend Schedule 'C'. It read as follows . _ "31. Power to amend Schedule C-The State Government, after giving by notification not less than three months' notice of its intention so to do, may by notification add to, or delete from, Schedule C any goods, and there- ~pon Schedule C shall be deemed to be amended accordmgly." The words 'three months' 1"n the b · a ave sect10n were substituted by 'twenty days' by Punjab Act No. 7 of 1967. A B c D E F G H A B c D E F G H 958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 3 s.c.R. In exercise of the power conferred by the above provision, the State Government issued the Notification on the 15th January, 1968 adding paddy and rice as items (8) and (9) in Schedule 'C'. The result was that the turnover relating to the purchase of paddy and rice became exigible to payment of purchase tax under the Act in the hands of the purchasers with effect from the 15th January, 1968. Aggrieved by the said notification, the appellants who became liable to payment of purchase tax on the turnover relating to the purchases of Paddy made by them filed petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution on the file of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana questioning the validity of section 31 of the Act, the Notification dated the 15th January, 1968 issued thereunder and their liability to payment of purchase tax. The principal contentions urged by the appellants before the High Court were (1) that section 31 of the Act which authorised the State Government to amend Schedule 'C' to the Act by adding certain items making the turnover relating to their purchases liable to tax was void on the ground that it suffered from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power and therefore the notification issued thereunder was also void and (2) that the appellants who were carrying on the business of manufacturers of rice could not be denied the benefit of section 5(2) (a) (ii) of the Act which authorised the deduction from the gross turnover die turnover relating to the sales of paddy effected in their favour notwithstanding the inclusion of paddy in Schedule 'C' to the Act. The High Court rejected both the contentions of the appellants and dismissed the writ petitions. Hence these appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution. In this Court also, the very same contentions which were urged before the High Court were urged in support of the appeals with some slight variations. The first contention urged by Mr. M. C. Bhandare, learned counsel for the appellants was that section 31 of the Act which authorised the State Government to vary Schedule 'C' to the Act by adding certain goods whose turnover was not liable to payment of sales tax before suffered from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power and in the alternative he submitted that even if the said provision was otherwise valid, it could not be interpreted as including within its scope the power to issue a notification which would run counter to the express legislative policy of the Act contained in section 5(2)(a)(ii) thereof which had been enacted with the avowed purpose of giving assistance to manufacturing industries. - I i " ~).. BABU RAM JAGDISH & co. v. PUNJAB (Venkataramiah, J.) 959 A review of the decisions of this Conrt to some of which we will presently refer shows that the delegation of power by the legislature to a'. local authority or to the Executive Government to vary or modify an existing law would not be unconstitutional so long as such delegation does not involve the abdication of essential legislativ~ power by the legislature. Such delegations of legislative power have been upheld by this Court on several varied and diverse grounds such as the scheme and policy of the statute under which the power is delegated, the presence of guidelines in the statute regarding the exercise of delegated power, the lack of time for the Legislature to make provision with regard to all the details involved in the administration of the law, the incapacity of the Legislature to foresee all future events, the nature of the subject matter of legislation and the nature of the douee of power etc. Even in matters relating to taxation law, it has been consistently held that the Legislature can delegate the power to fix rates of tax provided there are necessary guidelines regarding such fixation on the ground that in a modern society, taxation is one of the methods by which economic and social goals of the State can be achieved and the power to tax, therefore, should be a flexible power and capable of being easily altered to meet the exigencies of circumstances. Such delegation has been held to be not amounting to delegation of essential legislative function. In Powell v. Appollo Candle Company Limited(') the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was called upon to decide whether section 133 of the Customs Regulation Act of 1879 of New South Wales which conferred the power on the Governor to impose tax on certain articles of import was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative powers. In holding that it was not unconstitutional the Privy Council observed : ' "It is argued that the tax in question has been imposed by the Governor and not by the Legislature who alone had power to impose it. But the duties levied under the 0rder-in-Council are really levied by the authority of the Act under which the Order is issued. The Legislature has not parted with its perfect control over the Governor and has the power, of course, at any moment, of withdr~wing or altering the power which, they have entrusted to him. In these circumstances, their Lordships are of opinion that the judgment of the Supreme Court was wrong in declar- (1) [1885] 10 A.C. 282. A B c D E F G H / A B c 960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 3 S.C.l!.. ing Section 133 of the Customs Regulation Act of 1879 to be beyond the power of the Legislature." In J. W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States(') the validity of the action of the President to make changes in the rates provided in the Tariff Act, 1922 under the power delegated by the Congress arose for consideration. That was challenged as a forbidden delegation of legislative power to executive authority. The challenge was negatived by the Supreme Court of the United States on the ground that the Congress bad laid down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person authorised to fix the rate of customs duties on imported merchandise was to conform. The principle enunciated in the above two decisions has been substantially adopted and followed by this Court in two cases- ( 1) Pandit Banarsi Das Bhanot v. The State of M1dhya Pradesh & Ors.(') und (2) Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Bir/a Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills, Delhi & Anr.( 3) to which we shall D refer hereafter. In Rajnarain Singh v. The Chairman, Patna Administration Comndttee, Pdtna and Another(4 ) where an earnest atternpt was made to analyse and explain the judgment of this Court in re. The Delhi Laws Act, 1912('). Bose, J. after referring in detail to the observations E made by the learned Judges in the latter case observed at page 301 :- F G "In our opinion, the majority view was that an executive authority can be authorised to modify either existing or future laws but not in any essential feature. Exactly what constitutes an essential feature cannot be enunciated in general terms, and there was some divergence of view abont this in the former case, but this much is clear 'from the opinions set out above : it cannot include a change of policy." In Pandit Banarsi Das Bhanot v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (supra) where this Court was called upon to decide whether section 6 (2) of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 194 7 which authorised the State Government after giving by notification riot less than one month's notice of its intention so to do by a notification (1) 276 U.S. 394. (2) [1959] S. C. R. 427. H (3) [!968]3 SC. R. 251. (4) [1955] S. C.R. 290. (5) [!95!] S. C.R. 747. • • BABU RAM JAGDISH & co. v. PUNJAB (Venkataramiah, J.) 961 after the expiry of the period of notice mentioned in the first notification to amend Schedule II to that Act was constitutional, it was held that it was not unconstitutional for the Legislature to leave it to the executive to determine details relating to the working of the taxation laws, such as the selection of persons on whom the tax was to be laid, the rates at whlch it was to be charged in respect of different classes of goods and the like and that the power conferred on the State Government by section 6(2) of that Act to amend the Schedule relating to exemption was in consonance with the accepted legislative practice relating to the topic. In that connection at page 435, this Court observed : "Now, the authorities are clear that it is not unconstitutional for the legislature to leave it to the executive to determine details relating to the working of taxation laws, such as the selection of persons on whom the tax is to be laid, the rates at which it is to be charged in respect of A B c different classes of goods, and the like." D The next case to which reference may be made is Corporotion of Calcutta & Anr. v. The Liberty Cinema(') where the majority upheld the fixation of a tax on cinema shows by the Corporation of Calcutta even though the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1951 prescribed no limits to which the tax could go. In that case, reliance was placed on the case of Pandit Banarsi Das Bhanot v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (supra) and it was held that the fixation of rate of tax could be left to a non-legislative body provided the Legislature gave necessary guidance for such fixation. This Court in that case found guidance in the various provisions of the statute including the fact that the body which had been authorised to levy the rate was a municipal body whose fiscal requirements were restricted by the nature and area of its jurisdiction. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Bir/a Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills, Delhi & Anr. (supra) Hidayatullah, J. (as he then E F was) upholding the imposition of a tax by the Delhi Municipal CorG poration in exercise of the power granted to it under !lie Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 66 of 1957 observed at page 2'87 as follows :- "The doctrine that Parliament cannot delegate its powers, therefore, must be understood in a limited way. It __ o~1!- ~~ans that the legislature must not efface itself but (1) [1965] 2 S. C.R. 477. H i· B c D E F G H \ 962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 3 S.C.R. must give the !egisl~tive sanction to the imposition of tile tax and must keep the control in its own hands. There is no specific provision in the Constitution which says that the Parliament cannot delegate to certain specified instrumentalities the power to effectuate its own will. The question always is whether the legislative will has been exercised or not. Once it is established that the legislature itself haS willed that a particular thing be done and has merely left the execution of it to a chosen instrumentality (provided that it has not parted with its control) there can be no question of excessive delegation. If the delega_te acts contrary to the wishes of the legislature the legislature can undo what the delegate has done." In Devi Das Gopal Krishnan & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.(') the validity of section 5 of the Act (as originally enacted) which conferred on the Government power to levy tax at such rates as the Government might fix arose for consideration. This Court held that such conferment of power on the Government to levy tax at the rates determined by it without any statutory limitation or guidance was void. This Court, however, held that af!er section 5 was amended by Punjab Act No. 19 of 1952 by imposing the restriction that the rates determined by the State Government should not exceed two paise in a rupee was valid as the Legislature bad delegated the power to the Government to determine the rates subject to the restriction mentioned above. In the course of the above decision, Subba Rao, C.J., dealing with the decision of this Court in Corporation of Calcutta v. Liberty Cinema (supra) observed : "If this decision is an authority for the position that the Legislature can delegate its power to a statutory anthority to levy taxes and fix the rates in regard thereto, it is equally an ·authority for the position that the said statute to be valid must give a guidance to the said authority for fixing the said rates and that guidance cannot be judged by stereotyped rules but would depend upon the provisions of a particular Act To that extent this judgment is binding on us. But we cannot go further and hold, as the learned counsel for the respondents asked us to do, that whenever a statute defines the purpose or purposes for which a statutory authority is constituted and empowers it to levy a tax that statute necessarily contains a guidance to fix the rates : it depends upon the provisions of each statute." '. 1) [1967] 3 S. C. R. 557. • • ,. BABU RAM JAGDISH & co. v. PUNJAB (Venkataramiah; l.) 963 In Sita Ram Bishambher Dayal & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.(') the validity of section 3D(l) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 which authorised the levy of a tax on the turnover of first purchases made by a dealer or through a dealer acting as a purchasing agent in respect of such goods or class of goods, and at such rates, not exceeding two paise per rupee in the case of foodgrains, including cereals and pulses, and five paise per rupee in the case of other goods and' with effect from such date, as may, from time to time, be notified by the State Government in that behalE was questioned on the ground that the delegation of power to the State Government to determine the goods or class of goods whose purchase turnover would be liable to tax and the rates of purchase tax subject to the reslriction imposed in that regard by that section suffered from the vice of excessive delegation. Repelling the above contention and upholding the said provision, Hegde, J. speaking for the Court observed thus :- "It is true that the power to fix the rate of a tax is a legislative power but if the legislature lays down the legislative policy and provides the necessary guidelines, tnat power can be delegated to the executive. Though a tax is levied primarily for the purpose of gathering revenue, in selecting the objects to be taxed and In determining the rate of tax, various economic and social aspects, such as the availability of the goods, administrative convenience, the extent of evasion, the impact of tax levied on the various sections of the society etc. have to be considered. In a modern society taxation iS an instrument of planning. It can be used to achieve the e'conomic and social ,goals of the State. For that reason the power to tax must be a flexible power. It must be capable of being 1t10dulated to meet the exigencies of the sitnation. In a Cabinet form of Government, the executive is expected to reflect the views of the legislatures. In fact in most matters it gives the lead to the legislature. However, much one might deplore the "New Despotism" of the executive, the very complexity of the modern society and the demand it makes on its Government have set in motion forces which have made it absolutely necessary for the legislatnres to entrust more and more powers to the executive. Textbook doctrines evolved in the 19th Century have become out of date. Present position as regards delegation of legislative power (I) [1972] 2 S. C.R. 141. A B c D E F G H A B c D E F G 964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1979] 3 S.C.R. may not be ideal, but in the absence of any better allernative, there is no escape from it. The legislatures have neither the time, nor the required detailed information nor even t@ mobility to deal fn detail with the innumerable problems arising time and again. In certain matters they can only lay down the policy and guidelines in as clear a manner as possible." When the validity of section 3-D of U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 was again challenged before this Court in Hira Lal Rattan Lal etc. etc., v. State of U.P. & Anr. etc., e:c. Cl on the very same ground, it was agair; upheld by this Court with the following observations :- "The only remaining wntcntion is that the delegation made to the executive under s. 3-D is an excessive delegation. It is true that the legislature cannot delegate its legislative functions to any other body. But subject to that qualificaltion, it is permissible for the legislature to delegate the power to select the persons on whom the tax is to be levied or the goods or the transactions on which the tax is to be levied. In the Act, under s. 3 the legislature has sought to impose multi-point tax on all sales and purchases. After having done that it has given power to the executive, a high authority and which is presumed to command the majority support in the legislature, to select for special treatment dealings in certain class of goods. In the very nature of things, it is impossible for the legislature to enumerate goods, dealin·gs in which Sales tax or purchase tax should be imposed. It is also impossible for the legislature to select the goods which should be subjected to a single point sales or purchase tax. Before making such selections several aspects such as the impact of the levy on the society, economic consequences and the administrative convenience will have to be considered. These factors may change from time to time. Hence in the very nature of things, these details have got to be left to the executive." We shall now proceed to examine the validity of section 31 of the Act in the light of the decisions referred to above. The expression 'dealer' is defined in section 2( d) of the Act as "any person including H a Department of Government who in the normal course of trade sells or purchases any goods, in the State of Punjab." Section 2(ff) of the (1) [1973] 2 S. C. R. 502. • ( ~ \ .~r, • J. BABU RAM JAGDISH & co. v. PUNJAB (Venkataramiah, J.) 965 Act defines the expression 'pnrchase' as "acquisition of goods specified in Schedule 'C' for cash or deferred payment." The word 'sale' is defined in section 2(h) of the Act as meaning "any transfer of property in goods other than goods specified in Schedule 'C' for cash or deferred payment." Sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act which is the charging section provides that "subject to the provisions of sections 5 and 6, every dealer (except one dealing exclusively in goods declared tax-free under section ( 6) whose gross turnover during the year immediately preceding the commencement of the Act exceeded the taxable quantum shall be liable to pay tax under the Act on all sales effected after the coming into force of the Act and purchases made after the commencement of East Punjab General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1958." Section 5(1) of the Act authorises the State Government to determine the rates of tax payable on the taxable turnover of a dealer not exceeding the limit prescribed therein. Subsection (2) of section 5 of the Act lays down the principles governing the determination of "taxable turnover". During the relevant period, sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Act read as follows :- "5. (2) In this Act the expression "taxable turnover" means that part of a dealer's gross turnover during any period which remains after deducting therefrom- (a) his turnover during that period onA B c D (i) the sale of goods declared tax-free under seci tion 6; (ii) sales to a registered dealer of goods other than sales of goods liable to tax at the first stage under sub-section (1-A); declared by him in a prescribed form as being intended for resale in the State of Punjab or sale in the course of inter-Siate trade or commerce or sale in the conrse of export of goods out of the territory of India, or of goods specified in his certificate of registration or use by him in the manufactnre in Punjab of any goods, other than goods declared tax-free under section 6, for sale in Puniab and on sales to a registered dealer of containers or other materials for the packing of such goods : Provided that in case of such sales, l\ declaration duly filled up and signed by the registered dealer F G A B c D E F G H 966 (ii) (iii) SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 3 ,.C.R. to whom the goods arc sold and containing prc<- cribed particulars on a prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority is furnished by the dealer who sells the goods (iv) sales to any und 1ertaking supplying electric