Sri Vijayadurga Mini Modern Rice And Flour Mill vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The Court allowed the Writ Petition, holding that the issue was squarely covered by the Order of the Hon’ble Division Bench in W.P.No.29672 of 2023 and batch dated 26.06.2025. The Division Bench had struck down G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 08.04.2022. Consequently, the official respondents were disentitled from levying electricity duty at the enhanced rate of Rs.1/- per unit. The Court directed that the present Writ Petition be allowed in terms of the aforementioned Division Bench Order. The operative directions from the Division Bench's order, which are implicitly applied here, include striking down G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 08.04.2022, while permitting the government to collect duty at the rate of 6 paise per unit for the period from the date Act 10 of 2021 was published until the rate was modified according to law. The exemption for agricultural consumers under G.O.Ms.No.82, dated 07.07.2003, was also to remain in force.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Vijayadurga Mini Modern Rice and Flour Mill, challenged the validity of G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 08.04.2022, issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh. This Government Order increased the electricity duty from Rs. 0.06 paise to Rs. 1/- per unit on energy sales to commercial and industrial consumers. The petitioner argued that this action was an arbitrary and discriminatory exercise of power under Section 31 of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1939, and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner sought to set aside the G.O. and consequential bills, and to recover excess electricity duty paid. The respondents are the State of Andhra Pradesh and its electricity distribution company, APEPDCL.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the 1st respondent in issuing G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 08.04.2022, increasing the levy of electricity duty from Rs.0.06 paise to Re.1/- per unit on energy sales to commercial and industrial consumers, is a colourable exercise of powers conferred under Section 31 of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1939, and consequently illegal, arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable, and discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the increased electricity duty was an arbitrary and irrational exercise of power, constituting hostile discrimination and violating principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution. They argued it was an excessive delegation of power and contrary to the common order on Tariff for retail sale of electricity for FY 2022-2023. The petitioner relied on a Division Bench judgment in W.P.No.29672 of 2023 and batch dated 26.06.2025. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents.