The court emphasized procedural compliance and the necessity for rigorous assessment in determining unauthorized electricity loads, highlighting arbitrariness in prior determinations.

JUDGMENT

The writ petition has been preferred, challenging Exts.P10, P19, P20 and the consequential Exts.P12 and P21 bills. The entire issue pertains to an inspection conducted by the Anti Power Theft Squad of the 1^st respondent on 12.01.2017.

2. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company engaged in the manufacturing of health care equipment with the brand name 'Terumo Penpol'. The premises in question were obtained on lease by the petitioner as per Ext.P4 lease deed dated 01.03.2016. The electric connection bearing consumer No.5983, under the commercial tariff, is in the name of the owner of the building.

3. After occupying the building for some time, the petitioner company applied for an additional load of 52 K.W. for certain purpose, including manufacturing. Despite repeated requests, the respondents never heeded to the request. Therefore, the nature of the tariff remained ‘commercial’. The products of the petitioner are equipment operated electrically, which require testing and quality tests etc. The authorised officials of the licensee inspected the premises at various intervals. However, they never objected to the activities being conducted, and no direction was issued to change the tariff or the nature of the electric connection. It is also contended that they did not detect any unauthorised use of electricity or illegal activity at the premises. The Sub Engineer regularly recorded the meter readings and issued bills accordingly. The last bill prior to the inspection was issued on 03.01.2017.

4. Thereafter, on 12.01.2017, an Anti Power Theft Squad (for short ‘APTS’) of the KSEB conducted a surprise visit at the premises of the petitioner, led by the Sub Engineer. At the time of inspection, some equipment was in various stages of production at the manufacturing unit, while many finished products were stacked on the premises. The petitioner argues that the mahazar conveniently included certain equipment that was either still being manufactured or was stacked after manufacturing. Along with the energy-consuming devices, all apparatuses were also included in the mahazar, as evidenced by Exts. P6 and P7. Ext. P6 is the list of products (equipment) included in the mahazar, whereas Ext. P7 is the list of equipment constituting the connected load. Ext. P5, the mahazar, records the objection of the company's authorized officer, the Administrative Manager, who specifically stated that certain items listed in Ext. P6 were equipment kept for sale and not directly connected to the system. These items, it was clarified, were only tested prior to dispatch upon receipt of purchase orders.

5. The petitioner alleges certain procedural irregularities with respect to the inspection, noting that the Assessing Officer was not present in the vicinity. After the mahazar was prepared, it was handed over to the company’s representatives, who recorded their remarks and signed it. Subsequently, the Sub Engineer collected the mahazar, and the team vacated the premises. However, upon verification, it was revealed that the mahazar had been signed by the Assistant Engineer, who had not been present during the inspection. Under such circumstances, the company’s representatives approached the Assistant Engineer and requested a re-inspection, which was denied.

6. However, the Assessing Officer issued a provisional assessment order on January 17, 2017, demanding charges for the preceding 12 months, as detailed in Ext. P8. The petitioner filed an objection against this order. After hearing the consu