The Himachal Pradesh High Court has clarified the legal position regarding excess electricity duty payments made under a subsequently amended notification. While directing adjustment of excess amounts in future bills, the Court distinguished between electricity duty disputes and sundry charges, guiding petitioners to appropriate statutory remedies under the Electricity Act.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, M/s Haripur Kraft Company, challenged two aspects of electricity billing by the respondents: (1) excess electricity duty paid under a revised notification dated 01.09.2023, and (2) sundry charges imposed in the monthly bill (Annexure P-8). The dispute arose from a series of notifications modifying electricity duty rates under the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 2009.
Key Facts
- 01.09.2023: Respondent No.1 (State of H.P.) issued a notification under Section 11(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 2009, revising electricity duty rates for various consumer categories. The petitioner’s duty rate was revised upward.
- October-December 2023: The petitioner paid electricity duty at the revised rate for these three months.
- 20.12.2023: Interim protection granted in CWP No. 10523/2023, allowing the petitioner to pay duty at the pre-revision rate.
- 22.02.2024: Respondent No.1 issued another notification amending the 01.09.2023 notification, clarifying that industries availing benefits under the Himachal Pradesh Industrial Investment Policy, 2019 would continue to receive concessions for the admissible period.
- 07.03.2024: Several writ petitions, including CWP No. 10523/2023 (M/s Naxpar Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. State of H.P.), were disposed of as infructuous following the 22.02.2024 notification.
- Annexure P-8: The petitioner’s monthly bill included sundry charges, which formed the second grievance in this writ petition.
Procedural History
- 2023: The petitioner paid revised electricity duty for October-December under the 01.09.2023 notification.
- 20.12.2023: Interim order in CWP No. 10523/2023 allowed payment at pre-revision rates.
- 22.02.2024: Notification issued amending the 01.09.2023 notification.
- 07.03.2024: CWP No. 10523/2023 and connected matters disposed of as infructuous.
- 2026: Present writ petition (CWP No. 10138/2026) filed seeking:
- Quashing of Annexure P-8 to the extent of arrears amounting to ₹13,05,871/-
- Reimbursement of excess electricity duty paid under the 01.09.2023 notification.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Quashing of Annexure P-8 (monthly bill) to the extent of arrears of ₹13,05,871/-.
- Adjustment of excess electricity duty paid under the 01.09.2023 notification in future bills.
The Legal Issue
The primary legal questions before the Court were:
- Whether the excess electricity duty paid by the petitioner under the subsequently amended notification dated 01.09.2023 should be reimbursed or adjusted in future bills.
- Whether the Court could adjudicate upon the sundry charges imposed in Annexure P-8, or if such disputes fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the appropriate forum under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- Relied on the judgment in M/s Manjushree Technopack Ltd. v. HPSEBL & Anr. (CWP No. 10032/2023), wherein the Court had directed adjustment of excess electricity duty in future bills.
- Contended that the excess payment made under the 01.09.2023 notification was impermissible and should be adjusted.
- Argued that the sundry charges in Annexure P-8 were unjustified and required quashing.
For the Respondents
- State of H.P. (Respondent No.1): Conceded that the revision of electricity duty from 11% to 19% under the 01.09.2023 notification was impermissible. The duty was later re-revised to 16.5%.
- HPSEBL (Respondent No.3): Did not contest the adjustment of excess duty but argued that disputes regarding sundry charges fell outside the High Court’s writ jurisdiction and should be adjudicated under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
The Court's Analysis
The Court relied heavily on its earlier decision in M/s Manjushree Technopack Ltd., which addressed a similar factual matrix. Key observations included:
-
Impermissibility of Revised Duty: The Court noted that the State had conceded the impermissibility of revising electricity duty from 11% to 19% under the 01.09.2023 notification. The duty was ultimately fixed at 16.5%, and the Court held that any excess amount collected under the impermissible rate must be adjusted.
"What was impermissible in September 2024 was definitely impermissible in September 2023, and in view of the stand and reply of the State, no further adjudication on this issue is required, except declaring that the revised rate of 16.5% of Electricity (Duty) shall be applicable from 01.09.2023, and any excess amount, if deposited by the petitioner(s) and collected by the respondents, will be adjusted in future monthly energy bills."
-
Adjustment of Excess Payment: The Court directed that the excess amount paid by the petitioner for the three months under the 01.09.2023 notification be adjusted in future bills, aligning with the principle of restitution and the State’s concession.
-
Sundry Charges: The Court distinguished the petitioner’s second grievance regarding sundry charges. It held that disputes over such charges fell under the purview of Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which provides a statutory remedy before the appropriate forum. The Court declined to adjudicate this aspect under its writ jurisdiction, directing the petitioner to seek redressal through the prescribed statutory mechanism.
The Verdict
The Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
- The respondents were directed to adjust any excess amount deposited by the petitioner towards electricity duty for the three months (October-December 2023) under the 01.09.2023 notification in the petitioner’s future monthly energy bills.
- The petitioner’s grievance regarding sundry charges in Annexure P-8 was left open for adjudication under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 before the appropriate forum.
- The petition was disposed of accordingly, with all pending miscellaneous applications also standing disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Excess Payment Adjustment Is Mandatory Where Impermissibility Is Conceded
- State Concession Binds the Court: Where the State concedes that a notification or revision is impermissible, courts are likely to direct adjustment or reimbursement of excess payments. This principle was firmly established in M/s Manjushree Technopack Ltd. and reaffirmed in this case.
- Restitution Overrides Procedural Delays: The Court prioritized restitution of excess payments over procedural technicalities, even where the notification had been subsequently amended. This underscores the importance of challenging impermissible levies promptly.
Writ Jurisdiction Has Limits for Statutorily Prescribed Remedies
- Exclusive Forums for Specific Disputes: The Court clarified that disputes over sundry charges or similar billing components fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of forums prescribed under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Practitioners must:
- Identify the correct statutory remedy before approaching constitutional courts.
- Avoid invoking writ jurisdiction where alternative efficacious remedies exist.
- Judicial Restraint: The Court’s reluctance to adjudicate sundry charges under its writ jurisdiction reflects a broader principle of judicial restraint, where statutory remedies are preferred over constitutional remedies.
Industrial Policy Benefits Must Be Honoured
- Policy Concessions Are Legally Binding: The Court’s reliance on the 22.02.2024 notification, which clarified that industries availing benefits under the Himachal Pradesh Industrial Investment Policy, 2019 would continue to receive concessions, reinforces the binding nature of policy commitments.
- Industries Can Challenge Retrospective Withdrawal: Industries aggrieved by retrospective withdrawal of concessions or benefits can challenge such actions under Article 226, provided they act promptly and frame their grievances appropriately.
Practitioners should note that while writ petitions remain a potent remedy for challenging impermissible levies, courts will not entertain disputes where statutory remedies are available and efficacious.
