Godavari Mega Aqua Food Park (P) LTD vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the common order dated June 26, 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 Andhra Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1939, 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 amendments granting power to identify consumer categories for tariff fixing (Act 10 of 2021 and Act 23 of 2024). Crucially, G.O.Ms.No.7, dated April 8, 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, but G.O.Ms.No.277 remained in force, permitting licensees to recover duty at 6 paise per unit.

Facts

The petitioner, Godavari Mega Aqua Food Park (P) Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging G.O.Ms.No.7, Energy (Power-III) Department, dated April 8, 2022, which exorbitantly increased the electricity duty from Rs. 0.06 per unit to Rs. 1 per unit on energy sales to commercial and industrial consumers. The petitioner argued this action was arbitrary and illegal. The consequential action of the 2nd Respondent (Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Ltd.) in levying electricity duty at the enhanced rate, including raising High Tension (HT) bills from April 2022 to July 2023 for Service No. ELR1116, was also challenged. The petitioner sought to set aside the G.O. and the bills, and for a refund of excess duty paid.

Key Issues

1. Whether G.O.Ms.No.7, Energy (Power-III) Department, dated April 8, 2022, which increased electricity duty from Rs. 0.06 to Rs. 1 per unit for commercial and industrial consumers, is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of constitutional rights, principles of natural justice, the National Tariff Policy 2016, and the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission's common order for FY 2022-2023, based on Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1939. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the G.O. was issued in colourable exercise of power, was excessive, unjust, unfair, and unreasonable, and violated fundamental rights and established legal principles. They sought to set aside the G.O. and consequential bills, and for a refund. Respondent's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents. However, the court's decision references a common order by a Division Bench that addressed similar issues concerning the G.O. and amendments to the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Duty Act.