M/S Lakshmi Srinivasa Traders vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the common order passed by a Division Bench in W.P.No.29672 of 2023 & batch dated 26.06.2025. The Division Bench had struck down G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 08.04.2022, finding it impermissible to collect duty at the increased rate. However, the government was held entitled to collect duty at the rate of 6 paise per unit for the period from the date Act 10 of 2021 was published until the rate was modified according to law. The amendment to Section 3 of the relevant Act, granting power to the government to fix duty between six paise and one rupee per unit, was upheld. Conversely, amendments granting power to identify consumer categories for tariff fixing and amendments to Section 7 were struck down. G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 23.10.2024, was also struck down, but G.O.Ms.No.277, dated 09.12.1994, remained in force, permitting licensees to recover duty at 6 paise per unit.

Facts

The petitioners, a group of commercial and industrial consumers, filed a writ petition challenging G.O. Ms.No. 7 Energy (Power II) Department dated 08.04.2022, which increased the electricity duty from Rs. 0.06 Paise per unit to Rs. 1.00 per unit on energy sales to such consumers. They sought a declaration that this action was illegal and arbitrary, and requested that the duty be levied at the original rate of Rs. 0.06 Paise per unit and any refundable amounts be adjusted in future bills. An interim application was also filed seeking a stay on power disconnection for recovery of the increased duty.

Key Issues

1. Whether G.O. Ms.No. 7 Energy (Power II) Department dated 08.04.2022, which increased electricity duty for commercial and industrial consumers, is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the increased electricity duty imposed by the G.O. was illegal and arbitrary. They sought a direction to levy the duty at the previously established rate of Rs. 0.06 Paise per unit and to adjust any excess amounts collected against future bills. They also sought to prevent disconnection of power supply due to non-payment of the increased duty. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents. However, it notes that the issue was covered by a common order of the Division Bench in a related writ petition.