Disposed

M/S Precitech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply

Karnataka HC1 Sept 2023WP/11737/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of interest claim on refunded electricity tax. Court directed Respondent No.5 to refund principal and pay 6% annual interest from date of claim allowance to realization, as Respondent No.3 admitted liability.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.5 to pay refund of Rs.35,994/- along with interest at 6% per annum from the date the claim was allowed by Respondent No.5 to the date of realization.

M/S Precitech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Chamundeshwari… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:31546 WP No. 11737 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 11737 OF 2012 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S. PRECITECH ENGINEERS PVT. LTD., NO.58-A, 16^TH CROSS, RAMANUJA ROAD, MYSORE - 570 004. REPRESENTED BY SRI. M.R. SREEDHARA, MANAGING DIRECTOR. (BY SRI. Y.K. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE, NO.927, L.J. AVENUE COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, NEW KANTHARAJ URS ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE - 570 009. REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.

¶12

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC.), CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD., HOOTAGALLI SUB-DIVISION, HOOTAGALLI, MYSORE - 571 186.

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:31546 WP No. 11737 of 2012

¶15

CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL

¶16

FORUM (CGRF), NO.1633, "ANNAPOORNESHWARI COMPLEX" 1^ST CROSS, ANIKEHANA ROAD (NORTH), P & T BLOCK, KUVEMPU NAGAR, MYSORE - 570 023. REPRESENTED BY CHIEF ENGINEER.

¶17

ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN, KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, NO.9/2, 6^TH AND 7^TH FLOOR, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. G.C. SHANMUKHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. MANJUNATH RAYAPPA, AGA FOR R3; R1 AND R5 SERVED)

¶20

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED: 17.01.2012 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5 IN CASE NO.OMB/C/G-109/2010/116 VIDE ANNEXURE-L IN SO FAR AS THE REJECTION OF THE PETITIONER'S CLAIM REGARDING PAYMENT OF INTEREST IS CONCERNED AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 TO PAY THE INTEREST AT 2% PER MONTH, WITH MONTHLY RESTS FROM THE DATE OF DEMAND AND TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT OR PASS SUCH OTHER NECESSARY ORDERS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 TO MAKE THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST AS DEEMED FIT BY THIS HON'BLE COURT BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.01.2012 passed by respondent No.5 in case No.OMB/C/G-109/2010/116 (Annexure-L), by which, its claim for payment of interest was rejected.

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:31546 WP No. 11737 of 2012

¶25

The petitioner contends that it was sanctioned 95 H.P power under L.T. category and the installation was serviced on 09.02.1989. As per the Industrial Policy of Government of Karnataka, Small Scale Industries were exempt from payment of electricity tax for a period of 05 years from the date of starting commercial production. The petitioner had commenced commercial production on 16.04.1989 and as such, the petitioner was entitled to exemption for a period of 05 years i.e., up to 15.04.1994. Nonetheless, between 16.04.1989 to 15.04.1994, the respondent had imposed Electricity Tax of Rs.0.10 paise per unit. The petitioner requested respondent No.2 to grant the exemption and not to collect the electricity tax for the relevant 05 years and placed on record the relevant certificates to indicate the date of its commercial production. The Executive Engineer of the respondents refused to extend the benefits to the petitioner as by that time, the petitioner had approached the Court challenging the validity of certain back billing done by respondent No.1/Company. Consequently, the petitioner addressed a communication dated 06.09.1991 to the Assistant Executive Engineer claiming interest on the belated refund of Electricity Tax, if the exemption from electricity tax is

¶26

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:31546 WP No. 11737 of 2012

¶27

denied to him. Petitioner claims that the request of the petitioner was not considered but the petitioner continued to pay the tax lest, respondent No.2 would have disconnected the electricity supply. Later, the petitioner filed a petition before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum which passed an order dated 25.09.2009 and rejected the claim of the petitioner following which the petitioner approached the Electricity Ombudsman by an appeal on 15.10.2009. The Ombudsman passed an order dated 04.06.2010 remitting the case back to respondent No.4 for fresh consideration. Respondent No.4 rejected the claim of the petitioner by an order dated 17.01.2011, following which an appeal was preferred on 09.02.2011 before the Electricity Ombudsman. Respondent No.5 thereafter, passed an order dated 17.01.2012 allowing the claim of the petitioner and directing a refund of sum of Rs.35,994/- but rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of interest of Rs.30,43,620/-. A review petition was filed before respondent No.5 which was rejected on the ground that the Ombudsman has no power to review. Following the above, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the

¶28

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:31546 WP No. 11737 of 2012

¶29

order of respondent No.5 in not granting any interest on the amount payable to the petitioner.

¶30

This Court in terms of the order dated 20.09.2018, held and directed the Additional Government Advocate to hold talks with the concerned officials of the respondents along with the officials of the Department of Energy to ascertain as to who is liable to refund a sum of Rs.35,994/- to the petitioner. Following this, on 02.02.2019 the Government Advocate submitted that the amount of Rs.35,994/- is credited to the consolidated fund of the Government of Karnataka and that the refund of the same would require budgetary provision and approval from the Finance Department. Later, on 31.05.2023, a memo was filed by respondent No.3 assuring the petitioner that the amount ordered would be paid within a period of four weeks. Therefore, this Court directed the under Secretary Department of Energy to be present before the Court on 28.08.2023. Accordingly, the Under Secretary was present on 28.08.2023 and submitted that the principal amount of Rs.35,994/- would be paid by the end of the week. In so far as the interest payable is concerned, he submits that he would

¶31

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:31546 WP No. 11737 of 2012

¶32

secure proper instructions in that regard and thereafter the case was listed on 01.09.2023.

¶33

Learned Additional Government Advocate submits

¶34

that respondent No.3 would take immediate steps to transfer the amount to the account of the petitioner if the account details are furnished. He also submits that respondent No.3 would abide by the order of this Court regarding the interest that may be payable to the petitioner.

¶35

Now that respondent No.3 has admitted its liability

¶36

to pay a sum of Rs.35,994/-. In view of the order passed by respondent No.5, it is only appropriate that respondent No.3 is directed to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the dates when the amounts became due i.e., on the date when the claim was allowed by respondent No.5 till the date of realisation. This shall be complied by respondent No.5 within a period of two months from today.

¶37

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of .

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

M/S Precitech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Precitech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Jessie Mary Fernandes Vs Sub Inspector

Sri K N Rangapriya Vs Karnataka Samskrit University

Major General S G Vombatkere Vs Union of India

S Girish Kumar Vs Employees Provident Fund Organization

Sri Vijay Nayak M Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Jhansi Lakshmi Vs State of Karnataka