<?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>2019 (5) TMI 1984 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308895</link>
    <description>Standby charges forming part of the electricity supply cost fall within the State Commission&#039;s tariff-determination jurisdiction once the regulatory regime is in force. A distribution licensee cannot unilaterally revise such charges without Commission approval, as inconsistent mechanisms under the earlier supply law are displaced. Allocation of standby charges may reflect existing arrangements, standby benefits, actual utilisation, prior tariff recoveries, and the need for an equitable workable outcome; a 50:50 division is not automatic. The stated allocation was sustained, and the Article 14 challenge was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 30 Jul 2023 11:22:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=720996" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 1984 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308895</link>
      <description>Standby charges forming part of the electricity supply cost fall within the State Commission&#039;s tariff-determination jurisdiction once the regulatory regime is in force. A distribution licensee cannot unilaterally revise such charges without Commission approval, as inconsistent mechanisms under the earlier supply law are displaced. Allocation of standby charges may reflect existing arrangements, standby benefits, actual utilisation, prior tariff recoveries, and the need for an equitable workable outcome; a 50:50 division is not automatic. The stated allocation was sustained, and the Article 14 challenge was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308895</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>