104 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-19113-2024 Date of Decision: February 26, 2026 HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION .....Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI Present: Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Ridhi Bansal, Advocate for the respondents.

***

LISA GILL, J.

1. Prayer in CM-2828-CWP-2026 is for disposal of present petition in terms of judgment of this Court in CWP 17809 of 2024 (Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission vs Union of India and others, decided on 15.01.2026.

2. Notice of the application.

3. Ms. Ridhi Bansal, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent. 4. At request and with consent of learned counsel for parties, hearing of petition is preponed from 24.03.2026 for today itself.

5. Prayer in this writ petition is for quashing Show Cause Notice No. 160/2024 dated 09.07.2024 (Annexure P-6), whereby respondent No.2 has levied GST on the amount received by the petitioner as Tarif petition fee and license fee. It is the case of petitioner that said amount is received for discharging functions under Section 86 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which are judicial, quasi-judicial and inherently of statutory nature.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that controversy involved in this writ petition is identical to one as had arisen before Delhi High Court in W.P (C) 10680 of 2024 titled as Central Electricity Regulatory Commission Versus The Additional Director Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) and another, decided on 15.01.2025 along with connected matter.

7. After considering the arguments on behalf of petitioner, stand of respondents in aforesaid matter and scrutinizing applicable provisions of law, it has been held by Delhi High Court that regulation of tariff, inter-State Transport transmission of Electricity or issuance of licence cannot be construed as activities undertaken or functions discharging furtherance of business but they are an extension of statutory obligation placed upon a Commission to regulate these subjects. Relevant portion of the decision dated 15.01.2025 reads as under:-

“24. It becomes pertinent to note that the CGST Act not only deals with the supply of goods or services per se, it also brings within its ambit composite and mixed supplies in terms of Section 8. Composite supplies are those which are spelt out and enumerated in serial 6 of Schedule II. The supply of services generically is dealt with in serial 5. Undisputedly, the regulatory function discharged by Commissions can neither be said to be akin to renting of immovable property, construction of a complex or building, temporary transfer or permissive use or enjoyment of an intellectual property right, development, design of software, transfer of the right to use goods and which are subjects enumerated in serial 5 of Schedule II. The regulatory power which is wielded by Commissions under the provisions of the Electricity Act would also not fall within the ambit of clause (e) of serial 5 and which speaks of an obligation to refrain from doing an act or toleration of an act or situation. 25. Of equal significance is the definition of "business" and "consideration" as it appears in the statute. Section 2(17) defines "business" as follows: -

"2. Definitions. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-

xxxx xxxx xxxx (17)"business" includes-

(a) any trade, commerce, manufacture, profession, vocation, adventure, wager or any other similar activity, whether or not it is for a pecuniary benefit;

(b) any activity or transaction in connection with or incidental or ancillary to sub-clause (a);

(c) any activity or transaction in the nature of sub-clause (a), whether or not there is volume, frequency, continuity or regularity of such transaction;

(d) supply or acquisition of goods including capital goods and services in connecti