M/S. Sortex INDIA (P) LTD. vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of a common order passed by a Division Bench in W.P.No.29672 of 2023 & batch dated 26.06.2025. The Division Bench's order, which forms the basis of this decision, 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 in accordance with law. The exemption granted to agricultural consumers under G.O.Ms.No.82, dated 07.07.2003, was also confirmed to remain in force. The Division Bench also struck down G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 23.10.2024, but permitted licensees to recover Duty at the rate of 6 paise per unit from consumers, subject to any exemptions, with G.O.Ms.No.277, dated 09.12.1994, remaining in force.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sortex India (P) Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 08.04.2022, issued by the 1st respondent (State of Andhra Pradesh, Energy Department). This G.O. purportedly 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 also challenged the consequential action of the 2nd respondent (Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Corporation Limited) in levying Electricity Duty at the enhanced rate, reflected in High Tension (H.T.) bills issued from April 2022 onwards. The petitioner contended that this action was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of various rights and policies.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the 1st respondent in issuing G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 08.04.2022, by exorbitantly increasing the levy of Electricity Duty from Rs.0.06 per unit to Rs.1.00 on energy sales to commercial and industrial consumers is arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unfair, unreasonable, excessive, and violative of 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. The petitioner argued that the G.O. was issued in colorable exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1939, and was contrary to law. The petitioner sought to set aside the G.O. and the consequential H.T. electricity bills, and to direct the refund or adjustment of excess duty paid. The respondents' arguments are not explicitly recorded in the provided text, but their role as the issuing and enforcing authorities of the impugned G.O. and bills is clear.