Berry Alloys Limited vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The High 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 had struck down G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 08.04.2022. However, it held 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 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, remains in force. The Division Bench also upheld the amendment to Section 3 of the Electricity Duty Act by Act 23 of 2024, granting power to the government to fix duty rates between six paise and one rupee per unit. Conversely, amendments granting power to identify consumer categories for tariff fixing were set aside. The proviso for a minimum duty of 6 paise per unit in the absence of notified rates was unaffected. Amendments to Section 7 by Act 23 of 2024 were struck down. 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, permitting recovery of duty at 6 paise per unit.

Facts

The petitioner, Berry Alloys Limited, 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 argued this was an arbitrary exercise of power, interfered with central government policy, and violated constitutional articles. They sought to set aside the notification and consequential demands for electricity duty levied by the respondent, Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. The petitioner also sought a refund or adjustment of excess electricity duty collected. The writ petition was filed in 2023.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned notification 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 central government policy, illegality, arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, hostile discrimination, and in violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Petitioner's contentions: The notification is an arbitrary and illegal exercise of power, interfering with statutory policy notifications of the Central Government and the exclusive powers of the State Electricity Regulatory Commission. It violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Respondent's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment.