Muzzaffarpur Vidyut Vitran Limited Formerly Essel Vidyut Vitaran Muzzaffarpur Limited vs. The State Of Bihar And Ors

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable on merits due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy. The Court found that despite repeated notices, the petitioner did not appear before the assessing authority. It noted that Section 9A of the Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1948, provides a right of appeal against an order of assessment to any licensee or other person objecting to such an order. Similarly, Rule 14 of the Bihar Electricity Duty Rules also provides for an appeal against an order of assessment. Therefore, in view of the existence of a clear appellate remedy, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition on its merits. The Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks, directing the appellate authority to decide the appeal on its merits if filed within the stipulated time.

Facts

The petitioner, Muzzaffarpur Vidyut Vitran Limited, a company engaged in electricity distribution, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte order dated July 28, 2016, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Patna. This order, issued under Section 6A(5) of the Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1948, imposed a demand of Rs. 9,52,29,525.00 for the period 2014-2015. The petitioner argued that it is a distribution franchisee and not involved in selling or consuming electricity, and that the liability for electricity duty rests with the distribution licensee as per the franchisee agreement. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the order was passed ex parte without providing an opportunity for hearing. The State raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 9A of the Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1948, and Rule 14 of the Bihar Electricity Duty Rules? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order and demand notice were issued without considering its role as a distribution franchisee and without affording an opportunity of hearing. It asserted that no liability for electricity duty could be fastened upon it, citing the distribution franchisee agreement. The petitioner implicitly argued that the ex parte nature of the order and the substantive issues warranted direct intervention by the High Court. Revenue's (State) contention: The State contended that the petitioner was duly served with notices but failed to appear before the assessing authority. It argued that Section 9A of the Bihar Electricity Duty Act and Rule 14 of the Bihar Electricity Duty Rules provide a clear statutory remedy of appeal to the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Therefore, the State argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had failed to exhaust the available statutory remedy.