M/S. Classic Textiles vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of a common order dated 26.06.2025 passed by a Division Bench in W.P.No.29672 of 2023 & batch. The Division Bench had struck down G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 08.04.2022. However, it clarified that the government was entitled to collect Duty at the rate of 6 paise per unit throughout the period from the date Act 10 of 2021 was published in the Gazette until the rate of duty was modified in accordance with law. The exemption granted to agricultural consumers under G.O.Ms.No.82, dated 07.07.2003, was also confirmed to remain in force. The Division Bench also struck down G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 23.10.2024, but held that G.O.Ms.No.277, dated 09.12.1994, remained in force, permitting licensees to recover duty at 6 paise per unit, subject to exemptions. The amendment to Section 3 of the Act by Act 23 of 2024, granting power to the government to fix duty between six paise and one rupee per unit, was upheld, while amendments allowing the government to identify consumer categories for tariff fixing were set aside. Amendments to Section 7 by Act 23 of 2024 were struck down.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Classic Textiles, filed a writ petition challenging G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 08.04.2022, issued by the Energy Department of the State of Andhra Pradesh. This Government Order (G.O.) purportedly increased the levy of electricity duty from Re.0.06 per unit to Re.1.00 per unit. The petitioner contended that this increase was arbitrary, unreasonable, excessive, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as well as contrary to the National Tariff Policy, 2016. The petitioner sought to declare the G.O. unconstitutional and to set it aside. The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondent in issuing G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 08.04.2022, exorbitantly increasing the levy of electricity duty from Re.0.06 per unit to Re.1.00 per unit, is arbitrary, unreasonable, excessive, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the National Tariff Policy, 2016, in purported exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1939? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the increase in electricity duty was arbitrary, unreasonable, excessive, and violated fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. They also contended that the G.O. was contrary to the National Tariff Policy, 2016. Respondent's contentions: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the respondents. However, it notes that the issue was covered by a common order of the Division Bench.