TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (12) TMI 235
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l tariff under the policy of the Government and approved by the Board even though the actual commercial production of the appellant's factory started in 1998. The High Court in the impugned judgment accepted the stand of the State Government that in order to be eligible to get the concessional tariff under the policy in question, commercial production must have started by December 31, 1996 and since admittedly, the appellant did not have the commercial production by that date the incentive of concessional tariff would not be available. The question for consideration in these appeals, therefore, is whether an industrial unit which has set up the industry being lured by policy decision of the Government can still claim the benefit of the concessional tariff under the policy notwithstanding the fact that there has been delay in production, such delay being attributable to the inaction on the part of the Board in providing the necessary electric connection. 2.. The Government of Kerala in the Industry Department, issued G.O. (Ms.) dated May 21, 1990, indicating therein that the power connection will be given on completion of any project irrespective of whether a general power cut is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant intimated several authorities of the Government as well as the Board, requesting them to provide power for manufacture of ferro alloys in appellant's factory, which was otherwise ready for commissioning. But it is only in August, 1997, the Board issued the order, intimating the supply of power to the appellant's factory to the extent of 15 MVA at 110 KV. The Board then took about one year in connecting the sub-station in the appellant's factory for supply of power. Ultimately, the Board granted power to the appellant's company on October 22, 1998. In the first week of November, 1998 the appellant got the bill from the Board at the regular rate without the benefit of the concessional tariff as indicated in the industrial policy of the Government and also adopted by the Board. The appellant, therefore, approached the High Court and the High Court by an interim order directed that the appellant would be demanded the tariff on the basis of the prevalent rate prior to January 1, 1992. But the power connection had been cut off on account of non-payment of the electricity charges. The High Court then passed an order that on payment of Rs. 50 lacs by the appellant, the electri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing delayed, it will be unequitable to deny the concessional tariff flowing from the policy resolution of the Government. Mr. Salve contended that under section 22 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the Board is responsible to supply power on the terms and conditions of the licence and the said Board having allocated the power in favour of the appellant on November 7, 1995 and thereafter there being no power connection until 1998, it cannot deny the benefit flowing from the policy resolution of the Government which was adopted by the Board in its letter dated March 27, 1992. According to Mr. Salve, the Board cannot be permitted to prevent the benefit of an incentive policy by its own failure to provide power, which prevented the appellant from starting commercial production by December 31, 1996. Mr. Salve relying upon the judgment of this Court in Pawan Alloys & Casting Pvt. Ltd. v. U.P. State Electricity Board (1997) 7 SCC 251, contended that when the appellant was persuaded to set up the industry being lured by incentive of getting the concessional power tariff for a period of five years, ought not to be denied that relief on construing the power policy and literally no such co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ber 31, 1996. In this context the stand of the Board as well as the State Government cannot be held to be devoid of any substance when admittedly the commercial production of the appellant's unit did not start till December 31, 1996. But the question for consideration is when the Government has itself come forward alluring industrial units to set up their industries and when under the provisions of the Electricity Act, every consumer has the right to get the supply of power and in the case in hand, when power allocation has been made in favour of the appellant as early as in 1995, and yet the same power could not be supplied for such non-supply of power, the commercial production could not start by December 31, 1996, would it at all be equitable to deny the relief to the appellant by giving a literal interpretation to the incentive scheme of the Government as adopted by the Board. Our answer to this question must be in the negative. There are several documents on record, which were produced before us to indicate that the appellant has been communicating with the Board, seeking power connection at an early date so that it would be able to start commercial production by December 3....