M/S. Kalyana Chakravarthi Rice Mill vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The High Court, following the common order passed by its Division Bench in W.P.No.29672 of 2023 & batch dated 26.06.2025, disposed of the writ petition. The Division Bench had struck down G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 08.04.2022. However, it clarified that the government is 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 is modified according to law. The exemption granted to agricultural consumers under G.O.Ms.No.82, dated 07.07.2003, was also confirmed to remain in force. Furthermore, G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 23.10.2024, was struck down, with G.O.Ms.No.277, dated 09.12.1994, remaining in force, permitting licensees to recover duty at 6 paise per unit, subject to exemptions. The amendments to Section 3 by Act 23 of 2024, granting power to fix duty rates between six paise and one rupee per unit, were upheld. However, amendments to Section 3 by Act 10 of 2021 and Act 23 of 2024, concerning the identification of 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. Kalyana Chakravarthi Rice Mill, filed a writ petition challenging G.O.Ms.No.7 Energy (Power-III) Department dated 08.04.2022. The respondents are the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Corporation Limited. The petitioner sought to suspend the operation of the aforementioned G.O. pending the disposal of the writ petition. The court was informed that the issue in this writ petition is covered by a common order passed by a Division Bench of the same High Court in W.P.No.29672 of 2023 & batch, dated 26.06.2025. The Division Bench had previously struck down G.O.Ms.No.7 and G.O.Ms.No.22.

Key Issues

1. Whether G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 08.04.2022, issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh, is liable to be struck down. The petitioner challenged this G.O. which permitted licensees to collect duty from consumers. The revenue or State did not explicitly argue against the striking down of the G.O. in this specific instance, but the broader context involves the legality of duty collection. 2. Whether the amendments to Section 3 and Section 7 of the relevant Act, as introduced by Act 10 of 2021 and Act 23 of 2024, are valid. The Division Bench order addressed these amendments, upholding some and striking down others. The petitioner's challenge to G.O.Ms.No.7 implicitly relates to the validity of the underlying statutory provisions and government orders. The Division Bench considered arguments regarding the government's power to fix duty rates and identify consumer categories.