Sree Siddartha Yarn Processors PVT LTD vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of a common order passed by its Division Bench in W.P.No.29672 of 2023 & batch dated 26.06.2025. The Division Bench's order 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. However, it set aside amendments by Act 10 of 2021 and Act 23 of 2024 that allowed the government to identify consumer categories for tariff fixing. The proviso for a minimum duty of 6 paise per unit was upheld. Amendments to Section 7 by Act 23 of 2024 were struck down. Crucially, G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 08.04.2022 was struck down, but the government was permitted to collect duty at 6 paise per unit from the date Act 10 of 2021 was published until the rate was modified legally. 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.

Facts

The petitioner, Sree Siddhartha Yarn Processors Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition challenging 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 contended this G.O. was arbitrary, discriminatory, and interfered with central government policy and the State Electricity Regulatory Commission's powers. They sought to set aside the G.O. and consequential demands made by the respondent, Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd (EPDCL), for electricity duty from April 2022 onwards. The petitioner also sought a refund or adjustment of excess electricity duty collected. The writ petition was filed on 27.09.2023.

Key Issues

1. Whether G.O.Ms.No.7, Energy (Power-III) Department 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 statutory policy, illegality, arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, and violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, as argued by the petitioner. 2. Whether the consequential action of the 2nd Respondent in levying and collecting electricity duty on the Petitioner in HT bills from April 2022, without previous sanction under Section 7(1) of the Electricity Duty Act, 1939, is illegal, arbitrary, and unauthorized, as argued by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the G.O. was illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory. The respondents did not record any specific arguments in the provided judgment excerpt, but their role was to defend the G.O. and the subsequent collection of duty.