Prompt intimation and later departmental verification can support abatement despite missing first-day meter reading after equipment failure.

Prompt intimation of factory closure can satisfy the requirement for abatement when the electricity meter reading is not visible because of failure of the transformer-cum-CT & PT, especially where the department later verifies the reading and records closure in the log and statutory registers. In such circumstances, insistence on a first-day meter reading is not justified, and denial of abatement is unwarranted. An order recorded on file remains valid under the rules, and communication through the Superintendent does not by itself vitiate the decision-making process. On that basis, the abatement claim was maintainable and the mode of communication did not affect validity.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to abatement despite not furnishing the electricity meter reading on the first day of closure when the meter reading was not visible due to failure of the transformer-cum-CT & PT. (ii) Whether the order passed on file and communicated through the Superintendent was vitiated.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to abatement despite not furnishing the electricity meter reading on the first day of closure when the meter reading was not visible due to failure of the transformer-cum-CT & PT.

Analysis: The assessee had intimated the department on the date of breakdown itself that the meter reading was not visible and requested immediate inspection. The electricity board officials visited the factory the next day, recorded the reading in the log register, and the Range Superintendent also noted the reading and endorsed the RG-1 register. In these circumstances, the requirement of prompt intimation was treated as having been sufficiently met, and the assessee could not be faulted for not supplying the reading on the first day.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to abatement, and denial of abatement was unwarranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the order passed on file and communicated through the Superintendent was vitiated.

Analysis: An order recorded on file was treated as a valid order under the rules. The Superintendent's communication merely conveyed the order to the assessee and did not invalidate the decision-making process.

Conclusion: The proceeding was not vitiated on this ground.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the assessee's claim for abatement was maintainable and the manner of communication of the order did not affect its validity.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee promptly informs the department of closure and the meter reading is not available due to breakdown beyond its control, strict insistence on first-day meter intimation is not justified if the department later verifies the reading and the closure is otherwise established.

---