<?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>2023 (8) TMI 1722 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469653</link>
    <description>Delayed payment surcharge on electricity dues may accrue on each belated instalment payment, rather than only once on the original supplementary bill, where the payment schedule and regulatory framework make surcharge payable on default. The analysis treats liability as arising whenever the consumer misses the due date, so recovery is not confined by a limitation argument calculated only from the date of the supplementary bill. Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 was not treated as a bar on these facts because the claim related to delayed payment surcharge linked to repeated defaults, not a single static demand for consumption charges. The demand was therefore considered valid and recoverable on the facts discussed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=908851" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (8) TMI 1722 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469653</link>
      <description>Delayed payment surcharge on electricity dues may accrue on each belated instalment payment, rather than only once on the original supplementary bill, where the payment schedule and regulatory framework make surcharge payable on default. The analysis treats liability as arising whenever the consumer misses the due date, so recovery is not confined by a limitation argument calculated only from the date of the supplementary bill. Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 was not treated as a bar on these facts because the claim related to delayed payment surcharge linked to repeated defaults, not a single static demand for consumption charges. The demand was therefore considered valid and recoverable on the facts discussed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469653</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>