Disposed

M/s.Kanishk Ferrous and v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC7 Oct 2020WP/10836/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition seeking an injunction against demanding tax on maximum demand charges. Given a related Supreme Court appeal, the court passed interim injunctions restraining the respondents from disconnecting electricity supply, subject to payment of dues excluding such tax.

What did the court decide?

Interim injunction restraining respondents from coercive steps for disconnection, subject to payment of dues excluding tax on maximum demand.

M/s.Kanishk Ferrous and Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.10.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.10836 of 2015 and M.P. No. 1 of 2015

¶6

M/s.Kanishk Ferrous and Energy Ltd., H.T.Sc.1875, F14, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Gummidipoondi Tiruvallur District – 601 201. Rep by its Director Mr.Ashutosh Goenka ... Petitioner v. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary to Government, Energy Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶7

2.The Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDCO Ltd., 144, Anna Salai Chennai – 600 002. 3.The Superintending Engineer TANGEDCO Ltd., Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ... Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents from demanding and collecting the tax on maximum demand charges from the petitioner, M/s.Kanishk Ferrous and Energy Ltd., H.T.Sc.1875, as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, New Delhi on 31.08.2012 in SLP (C) No.24993 of 2012 and 25522 of 2012 etc., batch in M/s.Sri Krishna Alloys & Others Vs. Union of India & Others and requested in the representation dt.31.3.2015 sent by the petitioner.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Seshadri

¶10

For Respondents: Mrs.A.Madhumathy Special Government Pleader - R1

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

Mr.P.R. Dilip Kumar Standing Counsel – R2 & R3

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 2 and 3, from demanding and collecting the tax on maximum demand charges from the petitioner, as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 31.08.2012 in SLP(C) No.24993 of 2012 and 25522 of 2012 etc., batch in M/s.Sri Krishna Alloys & Others Vs. Union of India & Others.

¶15

When the writ petition is taken up for hearing Mr.K.Seshadri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.11505 of 2018, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also granted an order of interim injunction, restraining the respondents therein from taking any coercive steps for disconnecting supply of electricity to the premises of the petitioner therein, subject to the petitioner paying all charges/dues except the tax calculated on the basis of maximum demand.

¶16

The learned counsel had placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in M/s.Sri Krishna Alloys (in W.A.No.547 of 2004) and WP.No.28581 of 2003 (M/s.A.R.Metallurgicals (P) Ltd.,) wherein, in view of the Civil Appeal filed by them and the same is pending before the Supreme Court, the First Bench of this Court by order dated 02.06.2015, has disposed of the Writ Appeal in W.A.No.547 of 2004 and Writ Petition in W.P.No.25851 of 2003, with an agreement that the ultimate fate of the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court would also govern the present appellant and writ petitioner, the same interim order would continue to enure to the benefit of the appellant and the writ petitioner, due to the pendency of the Special Leave Appeals.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing on either side submitted that the said interim order may be passed in the present writ petition, subject to the result in the Civil Appeals pending before the Supreme Court.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the First Bench of this Court may be passed in the present Writ Petition also, to which, Mr.P.R. Dilip Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for TNHB had consented to it.

¶19

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and considering the fact that the Civil Appeal in 11505 of 2018, is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the present Writ Petition is disposed of with an agreement that the ultimate fact of the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court would also govern to the present writ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner and there shall be an order of interim injunction

¶20

restraining the respondents from taking any coercive steps for disconnecting the electricity supply to the premises of the petitioner therein, subject to the petitioner paying all charges/dues except the tax calculated on the basis of maximum demand. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶22

//True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar
To:
1.The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Energy Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Chairman and Managing Director,
TANGEDCO Ltd.,
144, Anna Salai
Chennai – 600 002.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
TANGEDCO Ltd.,
Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle
144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
+1 cc to Mr.K.Seshadri, Advocate,sr.33318
+1 cc to Government Pleader,sr.33073
nr(co)
krd 3/11
W.P.No.10836 of 2015 and
M.P. No. 1 of 2015

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/s.Kanishk Ferrous and v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Kanishk Ferrous and v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhamodharan Vs The Commissioner

P.Eswaramurthy, Vs The Sub-Registrar

K.R.Kumar, Vs The District Collector/

The Southern India Mills Vs Tangedco

G. Srinivasan Vs The Sub Registrar

K.Perumal, Vs The Chairman