TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the parallel operation charges fixed by Circular No. 687 before the Electricity Regulatory Commission became operational were invalid and incapable of being recovered until 31.08.2000. (ii) Whether the respondent was entitled to refund of parallel operation charges recovered for the period prior to 31.08.2000.
Issue (i): Whether the parallel operation charges fixed by Circular No. 687 before the Electricity Regulatory Commission became operational were invalid and incapable of being recovered until 31.08.2000.
Analysis: The governing tariff power under Section 29(1) of the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 operated only after the Commission was constituted. When Circular No. 687 was issued on 21.12.1998, no Commission was in place, and the Board still retained power to fix the tariff under the existing regime. The later Circular No. 706, issued after the Commission became functional, was rightly treated as invalid, but that did not render the earlier Circular No. 687 void from inception. Until it was superseded or specifically set aside, the earlier tariff structure continued to operate.
Conclusion: The earlier Circular No. 687 remained valid and enforceable until 06.09.2002, and the charges levied under it up to 31.08.2000 were recoverable.
Issue (ii): Whether the respondent was entitled to refund of parallel operation charges recovered for the period prior to 31.08.2000.
Analysis: Since the charges collected under Circular No. 687 were lawfully leviable during the relevant period, the demand for refund could not stand. The refund order proceeded on an understanding that the earlier charges automatically became unrecoverable once Circular No. 706 was quashed, but the legal position was that the earlier circular continued in force until displaced by a valid order. On that basis, the amount recovered before 31.08.2000 was not refundable.
Conclusion: The refund claim was unsustainable and the respondent was not entitled to refund of the charges recovered before 31.08.2000.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the direction for refund was set aside, leaving the appellant entitled to retain the parallel operation charges recovered up to 31.08.2000.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a tariff or charge is validly fixed before the regulatory commission becomes operational, it continues to govern until it is superseded or set aside by lawful authority, and recovery made under such tariff is not refundable merely because a later contrary order is invalidated.
TaxTMI 
