M/S Mahodar Beverages (Unit-Ii) Vs Hpsebl and Another

2025:HHC:42905

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 3588 of 2024 Date of decision: 10.12. 2025

M/s Mahodar Beverages.		...Petitioner.
	Versus
HPSEBL & Another.		…Respondents.

¶5

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶6

For the Petitioner. Mr.O.C. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr.Jia Lal, Advocate, vice Mr.Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Ms.Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No. 2.

¶7

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral)

¶8

The grievance of the petitioner is that, by issuing the impugned Notification dated 1.9.2023 (Annexure P-2), enhancement of the rate of Electricity Duty with respect to the petitioner industry to 19% from 11% is beyond the competency being contrary to the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 2009.

¶9

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

¶10

2

¶11

2025:HHC:42905

¶12

CWP No. 3588 of 2024

¶13

Admittedly, the petitioner fall in the category of Large Industrial Consumers, and vide communication dated 20.7.2017 (Annexure P-3) 11% Electricity Duty was made chargeable from the petitioner(s) w.e.f. 1.4.2016. The rate of Electricity Duty remained in force till the issuance of the impugned Notification dated 1.9.2023 (Annexure P-

¶14

2).

¶15

Vide Notification dated 1.9.2023 (Annexure P-2), as depicted at Serial No.(v) (b) (ii) therein, the rate of Electricity Duty was levied/revised @ 19%.

¶16

Section 11 of Himachal Pradesh Electricity (Duty) Act, 2009,

¶17

reads as under:-

¶18

“11. Power to exempt from payment of electricity duty:-

¶19

(1) The State Government may, in public interest, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt any licensee, consumer or person from the payment of the whole or part of the electricity duty for such period and subject to such conditions as may be specified in such notification. (2) The State Government may, be notification, revise the rates of electricity duty not exceeding 50% at any one time, of the rates specified under Section 3.”

¶20

Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and provisions

¶21

of law, and referring to the aforesaid provision of Section 11, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents were not

¶22

CWP No. 3588 of 2024

¶23

3 2025:HHC:42905

¶24

competent or entitled to revise the rate of Electricity Duty exceeding 50% of the rate prevalent at the relevant point of time.

¶25

Vide interim order dated 1.5.2024, this Court had restrained the respondents from collecting Electricity Duty beyond 16.5% in respect of Medium Industries and Large Industries.

¶26

Though reply has not been filed to this petition, however, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents that after filing of present Petition rates have been revised by the respondents vide Notification dated 18.9.2024 by decreasing the 19% enhanced rate of Electricity Duty to the revised rate of 16.5%. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that though rates have been revised, but the revised rates have been made applicable with immediate effect from the date of issuance of Notification dated 18.9.2024 but not from the date of impugned notification.

¶27

It has been submitted that identical issue was involved in CWP No. 10032 of 2023 and connected matters, which has been decided on 17.11.2025. Not only facts and circumstances, but the legal point involved in this petition is identical to the issue raised in CWP No. 10032 of 2023.

¶28

The aforesaid contention has not been disputed by learned Additional Advocate General, rather has been admitted.

¶29

CWP No. 3588 of 2024

¶30

4 2025:HHC:42905

¶31

In view of above, the findings returned in CWP No. 10032 of 2023 and connected matters shall be mutatis mutandis applicable to present Petition for all intends and purposes and accordingly present Petition is disposed of in same terms, by declaring that revised rates 16.5% of Electricity Duty shall be applicable from 1.9.2023 and any excess amount if deposited by the petitioner and collected by the respondents, will be adjusted in future monthly energy bills.

¶32

The petition stands disposed of alongwith pending application(s), if any, in aforesaid terms.

¶33

(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.

¶34

(Romesh Verma),

¶35

Judge.

¶36

10^th December, 2025

¶37

(Keshav)

M/S Mahodar Beverages (Unit-Ii) v. Hpsebl and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Mahodar Beverages (Unit-Ii) v. Hpsebl and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Hp Vs Narayan Singh

State of Hp Vs Arjun

State of Hp Vs Sunny Braik and Anr.

Santosh Kumari Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others

Madan Gopal Vs the State of Hp and Others

Prakash Chand Vs State of Hp and Others