Sri Suryanarayana Swa Mill vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the common order dated 26.06.2025 passed by a Division Bench of the same Court in W.P.No.29672 of 2023 & batch. The Division Bench's order, which was made binding on this case, had several key findings. It upheld the amendment to Section 3 of the Act by Act 23 of 2024, to the extent it granted the government power to fix the duty rate between six paise and one rupee per unit. However, it struck down amendments by Act 10 of 2021 and Act 23 of 2024 that granted power to identify consumer categories for fixing tariff rates. Crucially, G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 08.04.2022, was struck down. The government was permitted 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 legally. The exemption for agricultural consumers under G.O.Ms.No.82 remained in force. G.O.Ms.No.22 was also struck down, with G.O.Ms.No.277 remaining in force, allowing licensees to recover duty at 6 paise per unit.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Suryanarayana Saw Mill, challenged 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.) exorbitantly increased the levy of Electricity Duty from Rs.0.06 per unit to Rs.1.00 on energy sales to commercial and industrial consumers. The petitioner argued this was a colorable exercise of power under Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1939. Consequently, the second respondent, Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Corporation Limited (APEPDCL), began levying Electricity Duty at the enhanced rate, reflected in L.T. bills issued from April 2022 onwards. The petitioner sought to set aside the G.O. and the consequential bills, and requested a refund of excess duty paid and an injunction against future enhanced levies.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the 1st respondent in issuing G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 08.04.2022, by exorbitantly increasing the levy of Electricity Duty from Rs.0.06 per unit to Rs.1.00 on energy sales to commercial and industrial consumers, is arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unfair, unreasonable, excessive, and violative of Fundamental and Constitutional Rights, Principles of Natural Justice, the National Tariff Policy 2016, and the common order on Tariff for Retail Sale of Electricity for FY 2022-23, constituting a colorable exercise of power under Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1939. 2. Whether the consequential action of the 2nd respondent in levying Electricity Duty at the enhanced rate is illegal. Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the increase in Electricity Duty was arbitrary, illegal, unjust, excessive, and violative of constitutional rights and principles of natural justice. They contended it was contrary to the National Tariff Policy 2016 and the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission's common order on tariff for FY 2022-23. The petitioner relied on the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1939, and constitutional provisions. Respondent's contentions: The respondents did not record specific arguments in the judgment, but their actions (issuing the G.O. and levying the duty) were defended by their appearance and the filing of IA No. 2 of 2024 to vacate the interim order and dismiss the writ petition.