M/S. Oxford Educational Society vs. The 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, holding that the government was 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 was modified in accordance with law. The Division Bench also upheld the amendment to Section 3 of the relevant Act, granting the government power to fix duty between six paise and one rupee per unit, but set aside the power to identify consumer categories for fixing tariff rates. Amendments to Section 7 were struck down. The proviso to Section 3, stipulating a minimum duty of 6 paise per unit in the absence of notified rates, remained unaffected. 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.

Facts

The petitioners, a group of educational institutions and milk product companies, filed a writ petition challenging G.O.Ms.No.7 Energy (Power-III) Department dated 08.04.2022. This Government Order (G.O.) increased the electricity duty from Rs. 0.06 per unit to Rs. 1/- per unit on energy sales to commercial and industrial consumers. The petitioners contended that this enhanced levy was illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to statutory provisions. They sought a direction to levy electricity duty only at the rate of Rs. 0.06 per unit and to adjust any refundable amounts in future bills. They also sought interim relief to prevent disconnection of power supply for recovery of the enhanced duty.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in issuing G.O.Ms.No.7 Energy Power - II Department dated 08.04.2022, which increased electricity duty from Rs. 0.06 per unit to Rs. 1/- per unit for commercial and industrial consumers, is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to statutory provisions? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the G.O. was illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to statutory provisions. They sought a writ of mandamus to declare the G.O. and consequential actions illegal and to direct the respondents not to levy electricity duty at the enhanced rate and to adjust refundable amounts. Respondent's contention: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the respondents. However, it notes that learned counsel for both sides submitted that the issue was covered by a previous Division Bench order.