JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. M.S. Mittal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Salona Mittal, Advocate.

2. Heard Mr. A.K. Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-state and Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the JBVNL.

3. These writ petitions have been tagged together as common question of law are involved in all the cases and they relate to different periods.

Writ petition number Period

4. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the order of assessment dated 22.05.2020 for the respective period passed by the Respondents, whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay electricity duty on the amount of electricity energy consumed by the petitioner and penalty has also been imposed for not getting itself registered under the provisions of Jharkhand Electricity Duty Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The petitioner has also challenged the demand notice and the order of attachment of its bank account arising out of the order of assessment in each case. The assessment order, demand notice and the order of attachment of the bank account for realisation of the demand have been annexed in the writ petitions. Further prayer has been made for issuance of an appropriate writ directing that the Respondents have no authority in law to demand and recover the electricity duty from the petitioner who is only a consumer of electricity and not a Licensee.

5. The particulars of the impugned judgments are as under: -

6. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order of assessment has been passed treating the petitioner as a consumer of bulk supply of electricity from JBVNL. It has been alleged that the petitioner being consumer of bulk supply of electricity has not got itself registered under the provisions of Jharkhand Electricity Duty Act and Rules framed thereunder and accordingly not paid electricity duty under the said Act and consequently the impugned assessment order for each period has been passed assessing electricity Duty and imposing penalty. The learned senior counsel has submitted that though the impugned order of assessment is an ex-parte order, but the assessing Authority ought to have applied its mind while treating the petitioner as a consumer of bulk supply of electricity, in as much as the petitioner is admittedly having a shopping complex and is receiving electricity supply from JBVNL under High Tensions Agreement and is accordingly consuming the electricity. The learned counsel has referred to the agreement dated 13.04.2010 with JBVNL and as per the schedule attached to the agreement, the purpose for which the supply is given is ‘market complex’ at single point of supply and as per para 2 of the schedule to the agreement, the petitioner is only a consumer of electricity and not a reseller. The learned counsel submits that the Authority while passing the order has failed to consider that as per th