Eesha Tuff Glass vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court noted that a batch of writ appeals and writ petitions involving the same issue were pending. It was submitted by counsel on both sides that the issue in this writ petition is identical to those pending matters. An interim order granted in the batch matters was in operation, and a copy of the interim order in W.P.Nos. 29987 of 2023 and batch was placed before the Court. Given these circumstances, the Court directed that the petitioner shall continue to pay the electricity duty collected at Rs. 0.06 paise per unit (KWH) to the licensees, along with any arrears. The matter was listed for further hearing on 23.06.2025. The Court did not decide the main issues raised in the petition but granted an interim direction.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Eesha Tuft class, an industrial consumer, challenged the action of the State of Andhra Pradesh in issuing G.O.M.S.NO. 7 dated 08-04-2022, which exorbitantly increased the levy of Electricity Duty from Rs. 0.06 to Rs. 1.00 per unit on energy sales to commercial and industrial consumers. The petitioner contended this increase was a colorable exercise of power under Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1939, and violated various principles and policies. The consequential action by APCPDCL in levying duty at the enhanced rate from April 2022 to May 2025 was also challenged. The petitioner sought to set aside the G.O. and the bills, and to direct the refund or adjustment of excess duty paid.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the 1st respondent in issuing G.O.M.S.NO. 7, Energy (Power-III) Department, dated 08-04-2022, by exorbitantly increasing the levy of Electricity Duty from Rs. 0.06 per unit to Rs. 1.00 on energy sales to commercial and industrial consumers in the State of A.P. is a colorable exercise of power conferred under Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1939, and consequently illegal, arbitrary, and violative of constitutional rights and principles of natural justice? Petitioner's arguments: The increase in Electricity Duty was arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unfair, unreasonable, excessive, and violative of fundamental and constitutional rights, principles of natural justice, the National Tariff Policy 2016, and the common order on Tariff for Retail Sale of Electricity for FY 2022-23 by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission. Respondents' arguments: Not recorded in the judgment.