Trishgun Miglani Proprietor M/S ... vs State Of U P And 6 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 16690 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:116533-DB
 
Court No. - 21
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15056 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Trishgun Miglani Proprietor M/S Bakers
 
Respondent :- State Of U P And 6 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Raghav Arora
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Alok Mishra,Krishna Agarawal
 

 
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

Order on the Amendment Application

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. The amendment application is allowed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall incorporate the amendment in the writ petition and serve its amended copy on the other side during course of the day.

Order on the Writ Petition

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the recovery citation dated 1.4.2023 issued by respondent no. 7 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,59,564/- from the petitioner as electricity dues. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to respondent no. 4 to adjust the said amount against electricity duty charged from the petitioner from February 2014 to August 2019, totaling Rs. 2,95,382/-, as per paragraph 3.4.2.9 of the Industrial and Service Sector Policy 2004, notified on 21.1.2010 and refund the balance amount along with interest. By amendment, the petitioner has added certain grounds and also a relief for refund of electricity duty.

3. The case of the petitioner is that it is entitled to refund of electricity duty in view of the exemption clause in the notification dated 21.1.2010 and the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 11.8.2017 in Special Appeal Nos. 10446 - 10447 of 2017 (Gallantt Ispat Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Others). It is also submitted that in pursuance thereof, the State Government issued a notification dated 5.2.2018, laying down the procedure for refund of electricity duty. Thereunder, all claims for refund have to be submitted before the Director, Electrical Safety, who after verification, has to issue appropriate orders. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed representation before the Director, Electrical Safety on 13.3.2023, but it has not been alluded to so far and on the other hand, the respondents have issued the impugned recovery citation.

4. Sri Alok Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Electricity Department, does not dispute that the new electrical units are entitled to exemption of electricity duty as per the notification dated 21.1.2010. He however submits that thereafter another notification was issued on 4.9.2012 and since the petitioner-unit was set up in the year 2013, therefore it would not be entitled to benefit of the notification dated 21.1.2010.

5. In our opinion, the aforesaid issue can also be addressed by the Director, Electrical Safety, while determining the claims under the notification dated 5.2.2018.

6. Accordingly, we dispose of the instant petition with direction to respondent no. 4 to decide the claim of the petitioner for refund/adjustment of electricity duty, as contained in its representation dated 13.3.2023, within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the instant order. It shall be open to the petitioner to file additional representation and annex therewith documentary evidence in support of its claim, along with true attested copy of the instant order within one week from today before respondent no. 4.

7. The impugned recovery citation will abide by the decision that would be taken by respondent no. 4 on the representation of the petitioner.

(Prashant Kumar, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

Order Date :- 25.5.2023

Jaideep/-