1. Petitioner argued the issue was decided by coordinate bench; sought similar treatment. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 4951
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Ajay Mohan Goel, Yogesh Jaswal, JJ
RSA Technitex – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
CWP No. 5909 of 2026
Important Points
The court directed the respondents to resolve the petitioner's challenge against an electricity duty notification by applying the legal findings of a Coordinate Bench in a similar case (CWP No. 10032 of 2023).
Subject
Taxation - Electricity Duty
Act Referred
Himachal Pradesh Duty Act, 2009: S.11(2)
Headnote
(A) Electricity Duty - Notification - Challenge to validity - Issue already decided by Coordinate Bench in similar matter - Direction to decide in light of previous judgment. (Para 2, 3)
Issues: Whether the notification dated 01.09.2023 levying electricity duty is ultra vires and whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in CWP No. 10032 of 2023.
Issues: Whether the notification dated 01.09.2023 levying electricity duty is ultra vires and whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in CWP No. 10032 of 2023.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ajay Vaidya
For the Respondents: Anup Rattan, Sushant Kaprate, Sunita Sharma, Harshita
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ajay Vaidya
For the Respondents: Anup Rattan, Sushant Kaprate, Sunita Sharma, Harshita
Table of Contents
2. Court considered the judgment in CWP No. 10032 of 2023 and directed respondents to apply it. (Para 3 )
3. If factual matrix is akin to a decided case, same directions must be applied. (Para 3 )
4. Disposed of petition; directed respondents to apply findings of coordinate bench if facts are similar. (Para 3 )
5. When can a court direct the application of a previously decided judgment to a subsequent petition?
The court may direct the application of a prior judgment if the factual matrix of the present case is akin to the decided case. (Para 3 )
Whether approved for reporting?1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
(Oral)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:-
“A. To quash and set aside the notification dated 01.09.2023 (Ann P-2) being ultra vires, arbitrarily unreasonable and against the provisions of the Section 11(2) of the Act.
B. To issue of a writ of prohibition, from levying or collecting electricity duty under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh (Duty Act, 2009 or the Rules framed there under;”
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue raised in the present petition is no longer res integra and the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of this Court has already decided this issue in terms of CWP No. 10032 of 2023, titled as M/s Manjushree Technopack Ltd vs. HPSEBL and another and other connected matters, decided on 17.11.2025. Accordingly, he submitted that the interest of justice would be met, in case, this petition is disposed of with the direction that the findings returned in the above mentioned matter by the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench shall be construed to have been passed in the present petition as well.
3. Having perused the judgment being relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is ordered that the respondents shall deal with the case of the petitioner in light of the directions passed by the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench in CWP No. 10032 of 2023, titled as M/s Manjushree Technopack Ltd vs. HPSEBL and another and other connected matters (supra), provided the factual matrix in the present case is akin to the case before the Hon’ble Division Bench referred to herein above. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
