Chinta Subbarayudu Charitable Trust vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

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 operative portion of that judgment, as extracted in the present order, explicitly struck down G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 08.04.2022. The Division Bench also held that the government was entitled to collect duty at the rate of 6 paise per unit from the date Act 10 of 2021 was published until the rate was modified in accordance with law. Consequently, the present Court found that the Official Respondents were disentitled from levying one rupee as electricity duty per unit of sales. The Court directed that the Writ Petition be allowed in terms of the Division Bench Order.

Facts

The petitioner, CHINTA SUBBARAYUDU CHARITABLE TRUST, 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 Re.1/- per unit on energy sales made to commercial and industrial consumers. The petitioner argued that this action was a colourable exercise of power, illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner also contended that the consequential action by the Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited (APEPDCL) to levy duty at the enhanced rate was illegal. The petitioner sought to set aside the G.O. and the enhanced electricity duty levied in their bills from April 2022 onwards.

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, discriminatory, in violation of natural justice, contrary to the common order on Tariff for retail sale of electricity for FY 2022-2023, and unconstitutional due to excessive delegation, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the G.O. was an illegal and arbitrary exercise of power. They relied on a Division Bench judgment in W.P.No.29672 of 2023 and batch dated 26.06.2025, which they argued squarely covered the present issue. Respondents' arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the context implies they were seeking to uphold the validity of the G.O. and the enhanced duty.