M/S. S P Minerals vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court noted that the issue involved in the writ petition was covered by a common order dated 26.06.2025 passed by a Division Bench of the same High Court in W.P.No.29672 of 2023 & batch. In that common order, the Division Bench had struck down G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 08.04.2022. The Division Bench held that while the amendment to Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1939, by Act 23 of 2024, granting power to the government to fix the rate of duty between six paise and one rupee per unit, was upheld, the power to identify categories of consumers for fixing tariff rates was set aside. The proviso stipulating a minimum duty of 6 paise per unit was left unaffected. Crucially, G.O.Ms.No.7 was struck down, but the government was permitted to collect duty at the rate of 6 paise per unit for the period from the publication of Act 10 of 2021 until the rate was modified according to law. The exemption for agricultural consumers under G.O.Ms.No.82 remained in force. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of this common order.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. S P Minerals, filed a writ petition challenging G.O.Ms.No.7 Energy (Power-III) Department dated 08.04.2022, which allegedly increased electricity duty exorbitantly from Re.0.06 per unit to Re.1.00 per unit. The petitioner contended that this action by the State of Andhra Pradesh, through its Energy Department, was arbitrary, unreasonable, excessive, and violative of constitutional provisions and the National Tariff Policy, 2016. The petition also sought to suspend the operation of the said G.O. pending disposal. The respondents included the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited (APSPDCL).

Key Issues

1. Whether G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 08.04.2022, issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh, which increased the electricity duty, is arbitrary, unreasonable, excessive, and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the National Tariff Policy, 2016? (Question of law and fact, concerning the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1939, and constitutional provisions). Petitioner's contentions: The action of the first respondent in issuing G.O.Ms.No.7, increasing the electricity duty from Re.0.06 per unit to Re.1.00 per unit, was a colorable exercise of power, arbitrary, unreasonable, excessive, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the National Tariff Policy, 2016. The petitioner sought to set aside the said G.O. Respondent's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment.