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 due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy. The Court noted that Section 9A of the Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1948, clearly provides for an appeal against an order of assessment or penalty to the prescribed authority within the prescribed period and manner. Similarly, Rule 14 of the Bihar Electricity Duty Rules also provides for an appeal against an order of assessment. The Court found from the original records that despite repeated notices, the petitioner did not appear before the assessing authority. Therefore, in view of the existence of a clear appellate remedy, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition in its extraordinary jurisdiction. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal within four weeks, and the appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal on 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. 3,76,06,400.00 for the period 2013-2014. 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. The petitioner also contended that the order was passed ex parte without an opportunity of hearing. The State raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, asserting that the petitioner had received due notice but failed to contest the matter before the assessing authority.

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 arguments: The petitioner contended 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 argued that no liability for electricity duty could be fastened upon it, citing the distribution franchisee agreement which places the liability on the distribution licensee. The petitioner sought to bypass the appellate remedy due to these fundamental procedural and substantive flaws. Revenue's arguments: The State argued that the writ petition was not maintainable because the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 9A of the Bihar Electricity Duty Act and Rule 14 of the Bihar Electricity Duty Rules. The State contended that the petitioner was duly served with notices but failed to appear before the assessing authority, thus choosing not to contest the matter. The State submitted that the petitioner's claim of not being heard was fallacious, as evidenced by the assessment records.