[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs M/S. Acb India Ltd on 25 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally signed
by ALOK
2026:CGHC:14178-DB
ALOK SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.03.27
12:21:37 +0530 NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 252 of 2026
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Energy, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar,
Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Special Secretary , Department Of Energy, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Chief Electrical Inspector , Government Of Chhattisgarh, B-Block,
Second Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur,
District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - M/s. Acb India Ltd. A Company Incorporated Under Provisions Of
The Companies Act Having Registered Office At C-102, L.G.F. Surya
Enclave, Multan Nagar, New Delhi - 110056 Having Plant At Village -
Chakabura, Tehsil - Katghora, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh,
Represented Through Its Authorised Representative, Sh. Ganesan
Kumar
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Dy. Advocate General
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
25/03/2026
1 Heard Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate
General, appearing for the State/appellants as well as Mr. Abhishek
Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for respondent on I.A.
No.01, which is an application for condonation of delay of 23 days in
preferring the present appeal.
2 On due consideration the grounds assigned in the application (I.A.
No.01), the same is allowed. Delay of 23 days in preferring the present
writ appeal is hereby condoned.
3 With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties, the appeal is heard finally.
4 The present writ appeal is directed against the order dated
09.12.2025 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C)
No.3674/2023, whereby the writ petition filed by respondent/ petitioner
was allowed.
5 Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the issue
involved in this writ appeal has already been considered and decided by
this Court vide judgment dated 12.03.2026 in Writ Appeal No.213/2026,
whereby this Court has held as under:-
"11. From perusal of the impugned order, it
transpires that learned Single Judge has
observed that power to amendment the
scheduleand power to grant exemption /
relaxation from payment of duty in whole or
part, are two different powers under Statute.
Here in this case grievance raised by the writ
petitioner is with regard to computation of
arrears of duty to be paid by the writ
petitioner based on the amended rates as
mentioned in the schedule came to be
amended vide Chhattisgarh Electricity Duty
(Amendment) Act 2022, on the ground that
relaxation/exemption granted by the State
Government by Notification, Annexure P-3, is
still in force and that has not been
withdrawn/cancelled and therefore, writ
petitioner is entitled to exemption as granted
by the State Government vide Notification,
Annexure P-3, which was for 12 years and
will come to an end in August 2028. Learned
Single Judge further observed that Section
3B (b) of the Act of 1949 further grants power
to the State Government to cancel any such
notification and again. subject, by a like
notification, the distributor of electrical energy
or producer or class of such producers to the
payment of such duty in respect of such sale,
supply or consumption of electrical energy.
The State submitted reply to writ petition
mentioning that Section 3B of the Act of 1949
gives power to the State Government to
notify exemptions and if there is a public
interest which requires cancellation of such
notification and supercession by a like
notification. It is also submitted that the State
Government can withdraw such notification
exercising powers under Section 3B(b) of the
Act of 1949. True it is that under the Act of
1949 the power is vested in the State
Government to grant exemption from
paymentof electricity duty in whole or in part
and also to cancel any such notification and
again subject, by a like notification, the
distributor or producer of electrical energy to
payment of such duty. However, along with
reply, the State has not placed on record
anything to show that exemption granted to
writ petitioner and other like
producers/distributors of electrical energy
has been cancelled/withdrawn by notification
issued by the Competent Authority. Learned
Single Judge also observed that powers to
the authority under the Act of 1949 is not
questionable in view of specific provision
under Section 3B(iii) (b) of the Act of 1979.
Consideration before this Court is whether
the authority has exercised that power, in the
manner as provided under the Act of 1949.
Provisions under Section 3 (B) (iii) (b) of the
Act of 1949 in clear terms provides 'cancel
any such notification'. If grant of exemption is
by notification, then the cancellation of earlier
notification should also be by issuing
notification clearly mentioning that earlier
notification is withdrawn/cancelled. Intention
of the authority of withdrawing/cancelling
notification should be clearly worded. In the
case at hand, before this Court no document
is placed to show that the authority under
Section 3(B) of the Act of 1949 has issued
any notification withdrawing/cancelling earlier
notification dated 12.08.2016 (Annexure P-
3), as such the Notification, Annexure P-3, is
still in force and allowed the writ petitions
filed by the writ petitioner / respondent herein
and quashed the demand raised by the State
vide Annexure P-1towards electricity duty.
However, liberty is granted to the State to
recalculate the outstanding, if any, against
the writ petitioner towards electricity duty and
can raise fresh demand, in the light of
discussion and observation as made above.
12. Considering the submissions advanced
by the learned counsel for the parties,
perusing the documents appended with writ
petition as also with writ appeal and also
considering the finding recorded by the
learned Single Judge while allowing the writ
petitions filed by the writ petitioner /
respondent herein, we are of the considered
opinion that the learned Single Judge has not
committed any illegality, irregularity or
jurisdictional error in the impugned order
warranting interference by this Court.
13. Accordingly, the writ appeal deserves to
be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s)."
They further submitted that since the facts and issue
involved in the present case is identical to that of Writ
Appeal No.213/2026, this appeal may also be disposed off
in the same terms.
6 Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it
is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is
identical to Writ Appeal No.213/2026, this Court deems it
appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in
Writ Appeal No.213/2026.
7 Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the
order dated 12.03.2026 passed in Writ Appeal No.213/2026.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Alok
