NCLAT rules fuel surcharge charges become due only upon billing, not pre-insolvency liabilities under Section 31 IBC

NCLAT held that Fuel Surcharge (FS) and Special Fuel Surcharge (SFS) are statutory charges that become due only upon billing, not pre-insolvency liabilities extinguished under Section 31 of IBC. The tribunal found no conflict between Electricity Act 2003 and IBC 2016, applying harmonious construction principle. Since the corporate debtor stopped paying FS/SFS dues after obtaining interim protection, and future bills were not issued, these charges cannot be eradicated through resolution plan. The appellant was directed to pay outstanding FS/SFS within 60 days, with penalties applicable under Electricity Act for non-compliance. Appeal dismissed.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this judgment include:

• Whether Fuel Surcharge (FS) and Special Fuel Surcharge (SFS) are pre-insolvency liabilities that were extinguished upon the approval of the resolution plan under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
• Whether there is a conflict between the Electricity Act, 2003 and IBC, 2016 in the context of recovering FS and SFS, or if both statutes can be harmoniously interpreted.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Extinguishment of FS and SFS Claims Under IBC

The Appellant argued that FS and SFS charges, being pre-insolvency claims, were extinguished upon the approval of the resolution plan, citing precedents like Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., and Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta. These cases establish that claims not included in an approved resolution plan are extinguished.

The Respondents contended that FS and SFS did not become due until the bills were raised, which occurred post-insolvency commencement. The Court considered Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which indicates that electricity charges become "first due" only after the bill is issued, despite the liability arising from consumption.

The Court found that FS and SFS are statutory charges under the Electricity Act, not ordinary business debts, and become due only upon billing. Thus, they cannot be extinguished by the resolution plan as they are prospective claims arising after the bills are issued.

2. Harmonious Interpretation of the Electricity Act and IBC

The Appellant claimed that IBC overrides the Electricity Act, citing the judgment in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. Raman Ispat Pvt. Ltd., which held that IBC's Section 238 overrides other laws. However, the Court found no direct conflict between the two statutes in this case.

The Court emphasized the principle of harmonious construction, noting that an override applies only when there is a clear inconsistency between statutes. The Appellant failed to demonstrate such a conflict. The Court concluded that FS and SFS, being statutory obligations under the Electricity Act, are not extinguished by the IBC's resolution plan.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court upheld the impugned order, allowing the Respondents to recover FS and SFS. It concluded that:

• FS and SFS are statutory charges that become due upon billing, not pre-insolvency liabilities extinguished by the resolution plan.
• There is no conflict between the Electricity Act and IBC; both can be harmoniously interpreted.
• The Appellant is directed to pay outstanding FS and SFS within 60 days, with penalties applicable for non-compliance under the Electricity Act.

---