Srivarshini Hatcheries. vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of a common order dated 26.06.2025 passed by a Division Bench in W.P.No.29672 of 2023 & batch. 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 in accordance with law. The Division Bench also struck down G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 23.10.2024, but held that G.O.Ms.No.277, dated 09.12.1994, remains in force throughout the disputed period, permitting licensees to recover duty at the rate of 6 paise per unit, subject to exemptions. The court upheld the amendment to Section 3 of the Duty Act granting power to the government to fix duty rates between six paise and one rupee per unit, but set aside the power to identify categories of consumers for fixing tariff rates. The proviso to Section 3, stipulating a minimum duty of 6 paise per unit, was left unaffected.

Facts

The petitioner, Srivarshini Hatcheries, challenged G.O.Ms.No.7 Energy (Power - III) Department dated 08.04.2022, which increased the Electricity Duty from Rs. 0.06 per unit to Rs. 1.00 per unit on energy sales to commercial and industrial consumers. The petitioner sought a declaration that this G.O. was illegal and arbitrary, and requested that the respondents adjust any refundable amounts against future bills and levy duty at the original rate of Rs. 0.06 per unit. An interim order was also sought to prevent disconnection of power supply for recovery of the increased duty. The respondents are the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd.

Key Issues

1. Whether G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 08.04.2022, which increased the Electricity Duty from Rs. 0.06 to Rs. 1.00 per unit for commercial and industrial consumers, is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law, as argued by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the action of the respondents in issuing this G.O. was illegal and arbitrary. The respondents' specific arguments are not detailed in the provided text, but they are defending the G.O. and its subsequent implementation. The court had to decide on the validity of this G.O. and its impact on the petitioner's electricity duty. 2. The court also considered the validity of G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 23.10.2024, which permitted licensees to collect duty fixed under G.O.Ms.No.7. The petitioner implicitly challenged this by seeking relief against the increased duty. The respondents would have argued for the validity of this G.O. as well.