Sri Gayathri Hatchery vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The High Court allowed the Writ Petition, holding that the issue was squarely covered by the Order of the 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 rate of one rupee per unit of sales as per the impugned G.O. The Court directed that the present Writ Petition be allowed in terms of the Division Bench's order. The operative directions from the Division Bench's order, which were applied here, included 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 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 confirmed to remain in force.

Facts

The petitioners, Sri Gayathri Hatchery and Kothuru Jyothi, challenged G.O.Ms.No.7, Energy (Power-III) Department dated 08.04.2022, which levied electricity duty at Rs. 1/- per unit on energy sales exclusively to industrial and commercial consumers. They contended this was a colourable exercise of power, overreach, and interference with statutory notifications and the powers of the State Electricity Regulatory Commission, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioners sought to set aside the notification and refund or adjust the collected amounts. The respondents included the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. (APSPDCL).

Key Issues

1. Whether G.O.Ms.No.7, Energy (Power-III) Department dated 08.04.2022, levying electricity duty at Rs. 1/- per unit on energy sales to industrial and commercial consumers alone, is vitiated by colourable exercise of power, gross overreach, interference with statutory policy notifications of the Central Government and the State Electricity Regulatory Commission, illegality, arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, hostile discrimination, and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that the G.O. was illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory, violating their fundamental rights under Article 14. They contended it constituted a colourable exercise of power and an overreach into the domain of the Central Government and the State Electricity Regulatory Commission. Respondent's arguments: The learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL placed on record the judgment of a Division Bench in W.P.No.29672 of 2023 and batch dated 26.06.2025, indicating that the issue was covered by this prior decision.