https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469652 The writ petitions were held maintainable because the challenge concerned the legality of demanding past dues and surcharge before final retail tariff fixation, not a routine billing dispute. Delayed Payment Surcharge and disconnection notices were found unlawful because consumer liability crystallised only after the State Commission finally fixed retail tariff and bills were raised thereafter; surcharge could not rest on earlier provisional or fluctuating tariff positions. The DVC was permitted to recover only the differential arrears between amounts paid and amounts due under the final tariff, with credit for instalments already paid, and the two-year bar under Section 56(2) was held inapplicable to those differential claims. en-us Mon, 24 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469652 The writ petitions were held maintainable because the challenge concerned the legality of demanding past dues and surcharge before final retail tariff fixation, not a routine billing dispute. Delayed Payment Surcharge and disconnection notices were found unlawful because consumer liability crystallised only after the State Commission finally fixed retail tariff and bills were raised thereafter; surcharge could not rest on earlier provisional or fluctuating tariff positions. The DVC was permitted to recover only the differential arrears between amounts paid and amounts due under the final tariff, with credit for instalments already paid, and the two-year bar under Section 56(2) was held inapplicable to those differential claims. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 24 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469652