<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1988 (5) TMI 374 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298712</link>
    <description>A special electricity supply tariff is protected from unilateral revision only where the consumer agreement is a contractual commitment for a specified period under Section 49(3) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. A terminable agreement with no fixed tariff period does not attract that protection, so the Board may revise tariff under its regulatory power. The article also notes that an Article 14 challenge to tariff revision requires specific pleadings, and differential treatment is permissible where it is based on whether consumers are covered by subsisting special agreements. The stated effect is that tariff enhancement against non-protected consumers is not unconstitutional on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Nov 2021 15:46:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=661271" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (5) TMI 374 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298712</link>
      <description>A special electricity supply tariff is protected from unilateral revision only where the consumer agreement is a contractual commitment for a specified period under Section 49(3) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. A terminable agreement with no fixed tariff period does not attract that protection, so the Board may revise tariff under its regulatory power. The article also notes that an Article 14 challenge to tariff revision requires specific pleadings, and differential treatment is permissible where it is based on whether consumers are covered by subsisting special agreements. The stated effect is that tariff enhancement against non-protected consumers is not unconstitutional on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298712</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>