M/S. Triune Technofab Private Limited 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's order 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 affirmed to remain in force. The amendments to Section 3 by Act 23 of 2024, granting power to the government to fix duty rates between six paise and one rupee per unit, were upheld, but amendments allowing the government to identify consumer categories for tariff fixing were set aside. 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 licensees to recover duty at 6 paise per unit.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Triune Technofab Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging G.O.Ms.No.7 Energy (Power-III) Department dated 08.04.2022, which purportedly increased the electricity duty levy from Re.0.06 per unit to Re.1.00 per unit. The petitioner contended that this action was arbitrary, unreasonable, excessive, and violative of constitutional provisions and the National Tariff Policy, 2016. The petitioner sought to declare the G.O. unconstitutional and sought its setting aside. The writ petition was filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.

Key Issues

1. Whether G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 08.04.2022, which increased the electricity duty levy from Re.0.06 per unit to Re.1.00 per unit, is arbitrary, unreasonable, excessive, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the National Tariff Policy, 2016? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the increase in electricity duty was exorbitant and constituted a colorable exercise of power under Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1939. They contended it was arbitrary, unreasonable, and violated constitutional principles and national policy. Respondent's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents. However, it notes that the issue was covered by a common order of the Division Bench.