M/S. Nero Steels PVT. LTD. vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the common order dated 26.06.2025 passed by a Division Bench in W.P.No.29672 of 2023 & batch. The Division Bench's order upheld the amendment to Section 3 of the APED Act by Act 23 of 2024, granting the government power to fix duty rates between six paise and one rupee per unit. However, it struck down the amendment to Section 3 by Act 10 of 2021 and Act 23 of 2024 concerning the identification of consumer categories for tariff fixing. The proviso to Section 3, mandating a minimum duty of 6 paise per unit in the absence of notified rates, remained unaffected. Crucially, G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 08.04.2022, was struck down, but the government was permitted to collect duty at 6 paise per unit from the date Act 10 of 2021 was published until the rate was modified legally. G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 23.10.2024, was also struck down, with G.O.Ms.No.277, dated 09.12.1994, remaining in force, permitting recovery of duty at 6 paise per unit.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Nero Steels Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging G.O.Ms.No.7, Energy Power III Department, dated 08.04.2022, which levied electricity duty at Rs.1/- per unit. The petitioner contended this was illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, violating Section 7(1) of the APED Act, 1939, and principles of natural justice. The petitioner sought a refund of excess amounts paid and for the duty to be levied at the old rate of Rs. 0.06 paise per unit. The respondents were the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. (APCPDCL), and the Superintendent Engineer, APCPDCL.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in levying electricity duty at Rs.1/- per unit pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.7, Energy Power III Department, dated 08.04.2022, without prior sanction of the State government as mandated under Section 7(1) of the APED Act, 1939, is illegal, arbitrary, exorbitant, unconstitutional, and in violation of principles of natural justice and Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the levy was illegal and unconstitutional, citing a violation of Section 7(1) of the APED Act, 1939, and principles of natural justice. They also referred to a previous order of the High Court in W.P.No.29987 of 2023 and batch. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment indicates that the issue was covered by a common order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court in W.P.No.29672 of 2023 & batch, suggesting the respondents relied on this precedent.