Statutory electricity tariff cannot be reduced automatically after excise duty abolition absent express tariff or statutory provision.

Electricity tariff fixed under statutory power is not automatically reducible when central excise duty on generation is later abolished. The Board had fixed tariff under the Electricity (Supply) Act with relevant cost factors in view, and the tariff notifications reserved only a right to increase rates if duty was enhanced; no corresponding obligation to lower tariff on abolition of duty existed. Section 64-A of the Sale of Goods Act also did not apply, because the tariff was statutorily fixed, not a negotiated contract, and the excise element had merged into the tariff. The consumer therefore had no enforceable right to a reduction, and judicial direction to lower the tariff was improper.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the electricity board was bound to reduce the tariff after abolition of central excise duty on generation of electricity; and (ii) whether the consumer could invoke Section 64-A of the Sale of Goods Act to claim a reduction in the tariff.

Issue (i): whether the electricity board was bound to reduce the tariff after abolition of central excise duty on generation of electricity.

Analysis: The tariff for supply of electricity was fixed by the Board in exercise of statutory power under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, with the factors required by Section 49 and the revenue requirement under Section 59 in view. The duty burden had been merged into the uniform tariff by the tariff notifications, and the notifications reserved only the right to increase tariff if excise duty was enhanced. No statutory provision imposed a corresponding obligation to reduce tariff if the duty was later reduced or abolished. Pricing in such matters was left to the Board and the State, and the Court could not direct a reduction merely because one element of cost had disappeared.

Conclusion: The Board was not legally bound to reduce the tariff on abolition of excise duty, and the High Court erred in directing such reduction.

Issue (ii): whether the consumer could invoke Section 64-A of the Sale of Goods Act to claim a reduction in the tariff.

Analysis: Section 64-A applies only where the contract does not show a different intention. Here the tariff was not the product of bargaining but of statutory fixation, and the tariff notifications themselves indicated only upward revision on enhancement of excise duty, not downward revision on its abolition. The excise component had already lost its separate identity by merger into the tariff, and the consumer could not treat the later abolition of duty as an automatic contractual entitlement to a lower tariff.

Conclusion: Section 64-A of the Sale of Goods Act did not entitle the consumer to a reduction in the tariff.

Final Conclusion: The statutory tariff fixed by the electricity board could not be judicially reduced on account of abolition of excise duty, and the consumer had no enforceable claim to pass through that fiscal relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where electricity tariff is fixed under statutory power after taking relevant cost factors into account, a subsequent reduction or abolition of one cost element does not automatically require tariff reduction unless the governing statute or tariff terms expressly so provide.

---