SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(AP) 1494

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
Saiglobal Yarntex India Pvt Ltd – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
W.P. Nos.16619, 21616, 25165, 26807, 28108, 29614, 30036, 30742, 30801, 32559, 32605, 32609, 33988, 36442, 36883, 37271, 37272, 37273, 37274, 37275, 38328, 40830 and 42301 of 2022 & W.P.Nos. 506, 1543, 1546, 1572, 1658, 1665, 1666, 2165, 2334, 2601, 2610, 2922, 2935, 3009, 3067, 3315, 3557, 4124, 5617, 5800, 7163 & 7246 of 2023
Decided on : 15-09-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri K. Gopal Chowdary, Sri Sricharan Telaprolu, Sri Challa Gunaranjan, Sri Nimmala Satyanarayana, learned counsel, representing Sri G. Sudheer Kumar, Sri V.R.N.Prashanth, Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri K. Dheeraj Reddy, Sri Alladi Ravinder, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by J. Srinadh Reddy
For the Respondents:Sri P. Shreyas Reddy, learned Government Pleader, attached to the learned Advocate General’s Office, Sri V. R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned standing counsel along with Sri Abhay Jain, Sri Metta Chandrasekhar Rao

The court upheld the increased electricity duty as legal, distinguishing between tariff and duty, affirming legislative competence for revenue augmentation while rejecting claims of discrimination under Article 14.

Headnote:This judgment analyzes the validity of G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 08.04.2022 which imposes an increased electricity duty of Re.1 per unit for commercial and industrial consumers while exempting agricultural consumers. The court examined challenges based on colorable exercise of power and discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and concluded that the imposition was within legislative competence and did not violate constitutional equality principles. The court found lack of merit in claims for exemption by petitioners claiming agricultural status based on cold storage operations. Verdict: The writ petitions were dismissed except for directing that recovery in excess of Rs.0.06 per unit cannot be enforced without prior consent under Section 7 of the APED Act.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The G.O.Ms.No.7 imposes duty at Re.1 per unit for commercial/industrial, with agriculture exemption and domestic duty unchanged at 6 paise (!) (!) (!) . - APERC tariff order (31.03.2022) declined tariff increases for industrial/commercial, highlighting subsidy considerations; duty is separate from tariff (!) (!) (!) . - Issue of colourable exercise of power raised but court held no colourable exercise; power derives from APED Act, Section 3, 3A, and related provisions (!) (!) (!) . - Distinction between tariff (APERC) and duty (APED Act); subsidy for agriculture handled under tariff, not as a subsidy burden on industry via duty (!) (!) (!) . - Section 7 (1) APED Act requires prior sanction to recover duty from consumers; G.O.277 (1994) allowed recovery up to 6 paise; no sanction for Re.1 beyond 6 paise (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Petitioners (alloy, cold storages) challenged classification and exemption; court upheld classification as permissible under Article 14 with rational basis; exemption for agriculture not deemed mandatory for all categories (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Court's ultimate decision: G.O.Ms.No.7 valid; licensees to recover only up to 6 paise unless sanctioned; refunds/adjustments ordered for excess paid without sanction; cold storages not deemed agricultural by record (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Overall conclusion: duty is state tax under APED Act; tariff remains APERC; subsidy considerations clarified; no inter-state sale taxation issues in this case (!) (!) .

Question 1?

What is the legality of G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 08.04.2022, imposing electricity duty at Re.1 per unit on commercial and industrial consumers while exempting agricultural consumers?

Question 2?

Whether licensees can recover electricity duty from petitioners/consumers under Section 7 of the APED Act, and whether prior State Government sanction is required for recovery beyond 6 paise per unit?

Question 3?

Do cold storage industrial units qualify as agricultural consumers for exemption from electricity duty, considering statutory definitions and subsidies?


JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri K. Gopal Chowdary, Sri Sricharan Telaprolu, Sri Challa Gunaranjan, Sri Nimmala Satyanarayana, learned counsel, representing Sri G. Sudheer Kumar, Sri V.R.N.Prashanth, Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri K. Dheeraj Reddy, and Sri Alladi Ravinder, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by J. Srinadh Reddy, learned counsels appearing for the petitioners, and Sri P. Shreyas Reddy, learned Government Pleader, attached to the learned Advocate General’s Office for the State of Andhra Pradesh and Sri V. R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned standing counsel along with Sri Abhay Jain, and Sri Metta Chandrasekhar Rao, learned standing counsel for the Central Power Distribution Corporation of A.P.Ltd. (APCPDCL), appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioners in the batch of the above writ petitions except in W.P.No.33988 of 2022, have challenged the notification in G.O.Ms.No.7, Energy (Power-III) Department, dated 08.04.2022 with further consequential reliefs.

3. The W.P.No.16619 of 2022 is being taken as the leading writ petition. The prayer of this writ petition is reproduced hereinafter. In rest of the writ petitions, except in W.P.No.33988 of 2022, there are same prayers in substance, worded differently. However in W.P.Nos.2601, 2610 of 2022, there is no prayer for refund, may be because any duty pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.7 might not have been collected from them.

    ….to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing G.O.Ms.No. 7 Energy Power-III Department dated 08.04.2022 exorbitantly increasing the levy of electricity duty from Rs. 0.06 per unit to Rs.1 per unit on the energy sales made to commercial and industrial consumers in colourable exercise of the powers conferred under Section 31 of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1939 and the consequential action of the 2nd Respondent in seeking to levy electricity duty at the enhanced rate inter alia by raising RT Bill Nos. 2201593300, 2201584106 and 2201576585 dated 05.05.2022 for the month of May, 2022 and HT Bill Nos.2201630500, 2201628436 and 2201632042 dated 05.06.2022 for the month of June, 2022 as arbitrary illegal unjust unfair unreasonable excessive violative of the fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India violative of the principles of natural justice contrary to the National Tariff Policy 2016 contrary to the Common Order on Tariff for Retail Sale of Electricity during financial year 2022-2023 dated 30.03.2022 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission and contrary to law and to consequently set aside G.O.Ms No.7 Energy Power-III Department dated 08.04.2022 as well as the aforesaid RT Bills dated 05.05.2022 and HT Bills dated 05.06. 2022 to the extent of the enhanced electricity duty by directing the 2nd Respondent to refund the excess electricity duty paid by the Petitioners for the month of May, 2022 and not levy electricity duty on the Petitioners at the enhanced rate anymore and pass such other orders…..”

4. The petitioners in the above batch of the Writ Petitions are the commercial and industrial consumers.

5. In Writ Petition No.33988 of 2022, the petitioners are the proprietors/owners of the cold storages and claim to be not the commercial and industrial consumers, but the agriculture category consumers. Their stand is that they shall stand exempted from levy of any such duty, like agricultural consumers, and they cannot be asked to pay any duty pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 08.04.2022.

6. The prayer in W.P.No.33988 of 2022 is as under:

    “…..to issue an order or writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the demand made by the respondents to the petitioners to pay the electricity duty at the rate of Re 1/per unit increasing the same from Re. 0.06 Ps Per unit from April 2022 and True Up Charges in pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.7, Energy P

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top