M/S. Sri Venkata Padmavathi Rice Mill vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

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's order upheld the amendment to Section 3 of the 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 amendments to Section 3 by Act 10 of 2021 and Act 23 of 2024 to the extent they 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, dated 23.10.2024, was also struck down, with G.O.Ms.No.277, dated 09.12.1994, remaining in force, allowing licensees to recover duty at 6 paise per unit, subject to exemptions.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sri Venkata Padmavathi Rice Mill, challenged G.O.Ms.No.7, Energy (Power-III) Department, dated 08.04.2022, issued by the 1st respondent (State of Andhra Pradesh), which 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, and violated constitutional rights, principles of natural justice, the National Tariff Policy 2016, and orders of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission. The 2nd respondent (APEPDCL) was levying this enhanced duty through L.T. bills from April 2022 onwards. The writ petition sought to set aside the G.O. and consequential bills, and direct a refund or adjustment of excess duty paid.

Key Issues

1. Whether G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 08.04.2022, which increased the Electricity Duty from Rs.0.06 to Rs.1.00 per unit for industrial and commercial consumers, is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of constitutional and statutory provisions, as argued by the petitioner. 2. Whether the action of the 2nd respondent in levying Electricity Duty at the enhanced rate based on the impugned G.O. is sustainable. Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner contended that the G.O. was an arbitrary and colorable exercise of power under Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1939, violating fundamental and constitutional rights, principles of natural justice, National Tariff Policy 2016, and the common order on Tariff for Retail Sale of Electricity for FY 2022-23 by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission. Respondent's Contentions: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the respondents. However, the court's decision refers to a common order by a Division Bench that addressed similar issues.