TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether notifications, circulars, orders and statutory levies issued by instrumentalities of the State, including Indian Railways, MoEF, CIL and State Governments, constitute 'Change in Law' under the PPAs; (ii) Whether shortfall in domestic coal supply due to changes in the New Coal Distribution Policy and allied coal-allocation measures constitutes 'Change in Law'; (iii) Whether carrying cost on admitted 'Change in Law' claims is recoverable and, if so, at what rate and from what date; (iv) Whether the additional State levies and cesses, including forest tax and other environmental or development imposts, fall within 'Change in Law'.
Issue (i): Whether notifications, circulars, orders and statutory levies issued by instrumentalities of the State, including Indian Railways, MoEF, CIL and State Governments, constitute 'Change in Law' under the PPAs.
Analysis: The definition of 'Law' in the PPAs covered statutes, ordinances, regulations, notifications, rules, orders and interpretations having force of law, including actions of Indian governmental instrumentalities. Charges revised by the Railway Board, coal-quality requirements imposed by MoEF, and levies imposed by CIL and State authorities after the cut-off date were treated as measures having legal force. The Court applied the principle that post cut-off date increases imposed by governmental instrumentalities alter the contractual cost structure and attract restitution.
Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the generators and such measures were held to be 'Change in Law'.
Issue (ii): Whether shortfall in domestic coal supply due to changes in the New Coal Distribution Policy and allied coal-allocation measures constitutes 'Change in Law'.
Analysis: The Court followed its earlier decisions holding that changes in the New Coal Distribution Policy affecting assured coal supply amount to a change in law event. The reduction or reconfiguration of assured coal linkage after the relevant cut-off date was treated as a legally cognisable change under the PPAs.
Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the generators.
Issue (iii): Whether carrying cost on admitted 'Change in Law' claims is recoverable and, if so, at what rate and from what date.
Analysis: The PPAs created a restitutionary mechanism through supplementary billing and late payment surcharge provisions. The Court held that compensation must restore the affected party to the same economic position and that delayed recovery of change-in-law compensation justifies carrying cost. The contractual scheme and prior precedent supported interest on carrying cost rather than a re-writing of the agreement.
Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the generators, and carrying cost was upheld.
Issue (iv): Whether the additional State levies and cesses, including forest tax and other environmental or development imposts, fall within 'Change in Law'.
Analysis: The Court held that fresh levies imposed by State Governments or their instrumentalities under statutory powers, after the cut-off date, are part of 'Law' for the purposes of the PPAs. Accordingly, imposts such as forest tax, coal terminal surcharge, environmental upkar and development upkar were treated as compensable change-in-law events where they arose from post cut-off notifications or statutory action.
Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the generators.
Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the broad application of the PPA change-in-law regime to post cut-off statutory levies, regulatory charges and governmental notifications, and sustained the restitutionary compensation framework including carrying cost, while declining interference with the concurrent findings of the expert regulatory bodies.
Ratio Decidendi: Under a PPA that defines 'Law' broadly and incorporates restitution, any post cut-off statutory levy, notification, order or governmental instruction having force of law and increasing the generator's cost is compensable as 'Change in Law', and delayed recovery of such compensation carries carrying cost consistent with the contractual restitutionary mechanism.
TaxTMI 
