Krishna Institute Of Medical Sciences vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the common order passed by the Division Bench in W.P.No.29672 of 2023 & batch dated 26.06.2025. The Division Bench's order struck down G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 08.04.2022. However, it upheld the amendment to Section 3 of the 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. The proviso to Section 3, stipulating a minimum duty of 6 paise per unit in the absence of notified rates, was also left unaffected. The government was entitled to collect duty at the rate of 6 paise per unit from the date of publication of Act 10 of 2021 until the rate was modified according to law. 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, 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 Petitioner, Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences, challenged G.O.Ms.No.7, Energy (Power-III) Department dated 08.04.2022, which levied electricity duty at Re 1/- per unit on energy sales to industrial and commercial consumers. The Petitioner argued this was an overreach and interference with central government policy and the State Electricity Regulatory Commission's powers, violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. They also challenged the consequential action of the 2nd Respondent (APCPDCL) in levying this duty without prior sanction under Section 7(1) of the Electricity Duty Act, 1939, and sought a refund or adjustment of excess duty paid. The dispute pertains to the period from April 2022 onwards.

Key Issues

1. Whether G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 08.04.2022, levying electricity duty at Re 1/- per unit on industrial and commercial consumers, is vitiated by colorable exercise of power, gross overreach, interference with Central Government policy and the State Electricity Regulatory Commission's powers, illegality, arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, hostile discrimination, and violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 2. Whether the consequential action of the 2nd Respondent in levying and collecting electricity duty from April 2022 without previous sanction from the State Government under Section 7(1) of the Electricity Duty Act, 1939, is illegal, arbitrary, and unauthorized. Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner contended that G.O.Ms.No.7 was illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory, violating constitutional provisions. They argued that the levy was made without proper sanction and sought to set aside the notification and consequential demands, requesting a refund or adjustment of excess duty paid. Respondent's arguments: The judgment records that learned counsel for both sides submitted that the issue was covered by a common order of the Division Bench. No specific arguments for the respondents are detailed in this excerpt.