2026:HHC:892-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.11832 of 2024

Date of decision: 05.0P1.2026

The Himachal Pradesh Electricity

Regulatory Commission. ...Petitioner.

Versus

The Union of India & Ors. …Respondents.

Coram o

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporrting?1

For the petitioner : Mr. Vishal Mohan, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Praveen Sharma & Mr. Aditya Sood,

oAdvocates.

For the respondents : None for respondent No.1.

: Mr. Vijay K. Arora, Senior Advocate with

Ms. Aastha, Mr. Hitansh Raj and Mr.

h Gaurav Kumar, Advocates, for

respondents No.2 to 4.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge

Petitioner-Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory

Commission (‘HPERC’), has been constituted under Section 17 of Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998, vide notification dated

30.12.2000.

2. Petitioner being aggrieved by Show Cause Notice dated 02.07.2024 (Annexure P-7) issued by respondent No.4 asking the

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

petitioner why Goods & Service Tax (‘GST’) be not levied on the petitioner for rendering statutory services assigned to the petitioner under Section 86 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

3. The present petition has been filed seeking following substantive reliefs:-

“(i) Issue directions or a writ especially in the nature of certiorari for quashing the show cause nootice No. 156/2024 dated 02.07.2024, whereby the Respondent No.3 has levied GST on the amount received by the Petitioner as Licensee fee, Petition Fee and Misc. Supply without considerin g that the said amount is received for discharging functions utnder section 86 of the Electricity Act, which are judicial and quasi-judicial in nature, and hence, the same is not considered a supply as per Entry No.2 of Schedule-lIl of the CGST Act, 2017.

(ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents not to take any coercive action against the Petitioner in consequence to the illegal show cause notice No. 156/2024 dated 02.07.2024, during the pendency of present petition.

iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 to issue clarification regarding the 47" meeting of the Goods and Service Tax Council held on 28^th/29^th June, 2022 in which it was held that "Like other entities, Regulators should pay GST on their supplies" without hconsidering that the amount received by SERCs/JERCs/CERC in the form of Tariff Petition Fee, Licensees Fee, and ARR processing fee etc. is on account of carrying out quasi-judicial functions and thus have all the trapping of Court /Tribunal and thus the same is not considered a supply as per Entry No. 2 of Schedule III of the CGST Act, 2017.”

4. According to the respondents, the activity of support services to electricity transmission and distribution by way of issuance of Licences, fixation of tariff and Annual Revenue requirement processing etc. for which consideration has been charged as License Fee, Petition Fee and Annual Revenue requirement processing fee etc. undertaken by HPERC is squarely covered under the definition of the 'supply' as per Section 7 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and therefore, it appears that the GST shall be applicable on the said transaction.

5. Claim of the petitioner is that it is performing quasi-judicial and regulatory function, thus not amenable to Goods & Service Tax.

6. Admittedly, the issue is no longer res integra in view of judgment dated 15.01.2025 passed by Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No.10680 of 2024 titled as Central Electricity Regulatory Commission vs. The Additional Director Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) & Anr., which has been affirmed by Apex Court by dismissing the SLP (Civil) Diary No.32626 of 2025 titled as Additional Director Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) & Anr. vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission vide order dated 21.07.2025.

7. Following paragraphs of the judgment of the Delhi High Court are relevant and are