Partly allowed

Babu Aliyas v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Kerala HC19 Jul 2024WP(C)/31638/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the appellate authority order dismissing an appeal against an electricity assessment. It directed the authority to re-evaluate the case considering purchase bills showing equipment wattage differed from department claims and to afford a hearing opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P7 order quashed; appellate authority directed to re-evaluate matter considering purchase bills and afford hearing.

Babu Aliyas Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 31638 OF 2017

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

BABU ALIYAS
AGED 52 YEARS, MUNDAKKAL HOUSE,
ELEPHANT ROUTE, ANAVACHAL ROAD,
THEKKADY, KUMILY, IDUKKI- 685 509.
BY ADV SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PIN- 695 004.

¶9

2 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY APPELLATE AUTHORITY CC 51/52, NEAR 110 KV SUB STATION, VYTTILA, KOCHI-682019.

¶10

3 ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR OFFICE OF THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, PALAKKAT KUNNEL BUILDINGS, MOOLAMATTOM, IDUKKI- 685 589.

¶11

4 ASSISTANT ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KUMILY, IDUKKI DISTRICT- 685 509 BY ADV SRI.ARUNKUMAR A., SC, KSEB

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C) NO. 31638 OF 2017

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT Dated this the 19^th day of July, 2024

¶16

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

¶17

i) To call for the records leading to Ext.P7 and quash Ext.P7 by a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order;

¶18

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to make assessment under Section 126(6) in the resort of the petitioner on the basis of fixed charge and not to penalize the petitioner on the basis of energy charge in the light of the decision of this Hon’ble Court reported in (2017 (3) KHC 563);

¶19

iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on Ext.P9 for demand tariff.

¶20

The petitioner is running a resort in Thekkady under

¶21

the name and style of “Elephant route”. The Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS), Vazhathoppu, conducted a surprise inspection in the premises and the Sub Engineer, Idukki district, prepared Ext.P1 site mahazar. Subsequent to the inspection, Ext.P2 provisional invoice was also issued to the petitioner under

¶22

¶23

WP(C) NO. 31638 OF 2017

¶24

Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003, alleging that the petitioner had connected unauthorised additional load over and above the sanctioned load. Exts.P3 and P3(a) are the purchase bills of kettles as well as the specification of electric kettles. 24 numbers of electric kettles of 1000 watts were installed in the month of April, 2017 and the inspection was held on 05.05.2017. But the assessment was made on account of unauthorised additional load under LT VIIA commercial tariff for a period of 12 months. Out of the 26 electric kettles, only two are of 2200 watts and the remaining 24 are of 1000 watts. Hence, Ext.P1 site mahazar is incorrect.

¶25

Paragraph 5 of the writ petition is as follows:

¶26

Further, the assessment was made on account of UAL under LT VIIA commercial tariff for a period of 12 months. As a matter of fact, 24 electric kettles of 1000 watts were installed in the month of April 2017. Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) comprising of 2 motors of 1 HP and 1 motor of 1¹ /2 HP was operated from 31/03/2017. Out of the two water pumps, one was operated from 21/12/2016 and the other from 24/12/2016.

¶27

Pursuant to Ext.P2 provisional invoice, final bills

¶28

were issued to the petitioner vide proceedings No.BB/KMLY/1718/REV80 dated 05.06.2017 as Ext.P4. Subsequently, the

¶29

¶30

WP(C) NO. 31638 OF 2017

¶31

petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent and as per Ext.P7 order dated 07.09.2017, the appellate authority found that the final assessment order passed by the second respondent was in order and directed the petitioner to pay the balance amount. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the above writ petition.

¶32

Heard the learned Counsel of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB.

¶33

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal was dismissed mainly holding that the purchase bills of the electric kettles were not considered in view of the report of the Commercial Tax Officer, Vandiperiyar vide letter No.A.725/2017 dated 31.05.2017 and that, these invoices are not entered in the purchase list of the appellant. It is also submitted that the second respondent has also considered 2200 watts each for 26 Electric Kettles for confirming the order. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that, as per Ext.P8, the seller of M/s Orma Gift House, Kumily, has accounted the above said bills in respect of the purchase of the electric kettles

¶34

¶35

WP(C) NO. 31638 OF 2017

¶36

by the petitioners. It is submitted that the only reason stated in Ext.P7 appellate order for not considering Ext.P3 bills is that the petitioner had not entered the details of the bills in the returns filed, before the assessing officer, Commercial Tax Officer, Vandiperiyar.

¶37

On a perusal of Ext.P3 (a), it is seen that the kettles purchased by the petitioner are having only 1000 watts, whereas the second respondent and the departmental authorities have found that it was 2200 watts each, while issuing final assessment order. Ext.P8 certificate issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Vandiperiyar, to the seller of the electric kettles, reveals that the seller has accounted Ext.P3 bill in their sales invoices. The said fact was not considered by the appellate authority while considering the appeal filed by the petitioner.

¶38

On consideration of the entire facts of the case, I am of the opinion that Ext.P7 is to be quashed and the matter has to be considered afresh by the appellate authority. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as follows:

¶39

WP(C) NO. 31638 OF 2017

¶40

¶41

(i) Ext.P7 order is quashed.

¶42

(ii) The appellate authority is directed to re-consider the entire matter afresh also taking into consideration Ext.P3, Ext.P3(a) and Ext.P8, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.

¶43

(iii) The appellate authority shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

¶44

(iv) The petitioner is free to produce documents, if any, before the appellate authority.

¶45

(v) The petitioner is directed to produce the certified copy of the judgment along with the copy of the writ petition before the appellate authority for compliance.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

RK

¶50

WP(C) NO. 31638 OF 2017

¶51

¶52

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31638/2017

¶53

`PETITIONER EXHIB` `EXHIBIT P1`	`ITS` `TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED ON`
	`5.5.2017 BY THE SUB ENGINEER.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL INVOICE`
	`ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE BILL OF` `KETTIES DATED 3.4.2017`
`EXHIBIT P3(A)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIFICATION OF`
	`VOYAGER 300 ELECTRIC KETTLE SHOWING`
	`THAT IT IS 1000 WATTS.`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.`
	`BB/KMLY/17-18/REV80 DATED 5.6.2017` `ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING`
	`PAYMENT OF RS.2,64,542/- TOWARDS` `STATUTORY DEPOSIT.`
`EXHIBIT P5(A)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING`
	`PAYMENT OF RS. 5291/- TOWARDS APPEAL` `FEE.`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED UNDER`
	`SECTION 127 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT` `2003.`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.9.2017` `PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED` `25.9.2017 ISSUED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX` `OFFICER, VANDIPERIYAR AT KUMILY.`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR`
	`DEMAND TARIFF AS PROVIDED UNDER THE` `AMENDED ACT.`

Babu Aliyas v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu Aliyas v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.J.Obrin Vs the District Collector

International Best Foods Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment)

Ragini Devi Amma K.P. Vs State of Kerala

P.J.A Manoj Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

K.Mohanan Vs the Ponnani Municipality

Dhanesh Vs Biju Mathew