Back
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
Shiv Alloys Steel, Represented by it’s partner Sri Dipak Das, Son of Late Bogaram Das – Appellant
Versus
Assam Power Distribution Company Limited, Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Michael Zothankhuma, J.)
1. Heard Mr. G. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel for the APDCL.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.07.2017, by which the revised assessment bill for the electricity charges for the period 12.11.2013 to 20.07.2014 has been made.
3. The petitioner’s case is that the payment for unauthorized use of electricity had been decided by the Appellate Forum in terms of Section 127 of The Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), vide order dated 25.03.2015 passed in Appeal No.09/2015 and the assessment bill dated 28.03.2015 had been made in pursuance to the said order dated 25.03.2015. The petitioner’s further case is that the said bill dated 28.03.2015 could not have been revised by the impugned bill dated 25.07.2017, in terms of Section 56(2) of the Act and especially when the assessment amount, made in terms of the assessment bill dated 28.03.2015, had been paid by the petitioner.
4. The APDCL had initially made a provisional assessment and final assessment bill under Section 126 of the Act, for unauthorized use of ele
The court held that a licensee can correct a bona fide mistake in billing even after the two-year limitation period for recovery of dues under Section 56(2) of The Electricity Act, 2003.
Supplementary bills can be raised for mistakes, but disconnection for non-payment after two years is prohibited under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Appellate Authority erred in reducing the periods of assessment for unauthorized use of electricity, as defined by the provisions of Sec.1....
The obligation to pay electricity charges arises upon issuance of a bill, which constitutes the first due, and the limitation period under Section 56(2) does not prevent supplementary demands.
The court established that an electricity company can issue revised bills for bona fide mistakes in billing, reinforcing the consumer's obligation to pay based on accurate meter readings.
The appellate authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 cannot enhance an assessment bill without a cross-appeal and must adhere to principles of natural justice, including providing n....
The obligation to pay electricity charges arises upon issuance of the bill, which constitutes the first due amount, regardless of prior consumption, as per Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2013.
The obligation to pay electricity charges arises upon the issuance of a bill, as clarified under Section 56 of the Electricity Act, allowing supplementary demands beyond the usual limitation period w....
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
