Ap Heavy Machinery And Engineering Co vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the issue in the present writ petition was covered by the common order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in W.P.No.29672 of 2023 & batch dated June 26, 2025. In that common order, the Division Bench had struck down G.O.Ms.No.7, dated April 8, 2022. However, the government was permitted 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 was modified in accordance with law. The exemption granted to agricultural consumers under G.O.Ms.No.82, dated July 7, 2003, was also held to remain in force. The Court disposed of the present writ petition in terms of the aforesaid common order, directing the registry to annex a copy of the Division Bench's order to the present judgment. No order as to costs was made.

Facts

The petitioner, AP Heavy Machinery and Engineering Co., challenged G.O.Ms.No.7, dated April 8, 2022, issued by the Energy Department of Andhra Pradesh. This Government Order (G.O.) purportedly 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 argued this was an arbitrary and excessive increase, violating constitutional rights and established policies. The G.O. was challenged as a colorable exercise of power under Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1939. The petitioner sought to set aside the G.O. and consequential electricity bills issued from April 2022 onwards, and to refund or adjust excess duty paid.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the 1st respondent in issuing G.O.Ms.No.7, 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, is arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unfair, unreasonable, excessive, and violative of Fundamental and Constitutional Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India, principles of natural justice, National Tariff Policy 2016, and the common order on Tariff for Retail Sale of Electricity for FY 2022-23 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, as contended by the petitioner. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the increase in electricity duty was exorbitant, arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unfair, unreasonable, and excessive. They argued it violated their fundamental and constitutional rights, principles of natural justice, the National Tariff Policy 2016, and a common order by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission. The petitioner asserted that the G.O. was a colorable exercise of power under Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1939. Respondent's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the respondents. However, it notes that learned counsel appearing on either side submitted that the issue involved is covered by a common order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.