M/S. Sai Suguna Aqua Products vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court acknowledged that a batch of writ appeals and writ petitions involving the same issue was pending before it. It was submitted by counsel on both sides that the issue in the present writ petition is identical to those in the pending batch matters. The Court also noted that an interim order granted in the batch matters (specifically in W.P.Nos. 29987 of 2023 and batch) was in operation. Given these circumstances, the Court directed that the petitioner shall continue to pay the electricity duty collected at the rate of Rs. 0.06 paise per unit (KWH) to the licensees, along with any arrears. The matter was listed for further hearing after the summer vacation of 2025. The Court did not decide the substantive issues raised in the petition but maintained the status quo as per the interim order in the batch matters.

Facts

M/s. Sai Suguna Aqua Products, a commercial and industrial consumer, filed a writ petition challenging the action of the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Corporation Limited (APEPDCL). The petitioner contested G.O.Ms.No. 7, Energy (Power-III) Department, dated 08-04-2022, which purportedly exorbitantly 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 a colourable exercise of power under Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1939. The consequential action of APEPDCL levying duty at the enhanced rate, as reflected in bills from April 2025, was also challenged as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of constitutional rights and principles of natural justice. The petitioner sought to set aside the G.O. and the enhanced electricity bills, and to direct APEPDCL to refund or adjust excess duty paid.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the first respondent in issuing G.O.Ms.No. 7, Energy (Power-III) Department, dated 08-04-2022, by increasing the levy of electricity duty from Rs. 0.06 per unit to Rs. 1.00 per unit on energy sales to commercial and industrial consumers, is a colourable exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1939, and consequently arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unfair, unreasonable, excessive, and violative of Fundamental and Constitutional Rights, Principles of Natural Justice, National Tariff Policy 2016, and the common order on Tariff for Retail Sale of Electricity during the financial year 2022-23 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the increase in electricity duty was exorbitant, arbitrary, illegal, and violative of various constitutional provisions, principles of natural justice, and relevant policies and tariff orders. They argued it was a colourable exercise of power under Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1939. Respondents' arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents. However, it notes that a batch of writ appeals and writ petitions with the same issue were pending, and an interim order granted in those matters was in operation.