Back
RAVI NATH TILHARI
Saiglobal Yarntex India Pvt Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
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?
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 (!) (!) .
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 s
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 un....
Amendments to taxation statutes cannot change their fundamental basis without corresponding amendments to the charging provisions, which must be clear and unambiguous to avoid excessive delegation of....
Section 3(B)(b) of Act enables levy of electricity duty upon cancellation of exemption.
(1) When a right is created by a statute which itself prescribes remedy or procedure for enforcing right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking discretio....
Even bare consumption of electricity energy by a person who generates the same is permissible to be taxed by reference to Entry 53 of the State List.
The judgment established the importance of understanding exemption provisions, interpreting government orders, and adhering to the procedure for assessment and appeal under the relevant electricity t....
The State can withdraw exemptions from electricity duty but must provide reasonable notice to affected captive power generators to allow adjustment.
Tax cannot be imposed on electricity supplied but not consumed as it does not equate to sale, violating legislative competence under Entry No. 53, List II of the Seventh Schedule.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
