TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 1722
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mited (herein after referred to as the Distribution Company) by supplementary bill dated 13.08.2015 was affirmed. By the said demand, the distribution company demanded delayed payment surcharge (DPS) on the electricity charges due and payable by the appellant. 2. On 14.06.2016 the appellant entered into an agreement with Durgapur Projects Limited (DPL) for supply of electricity to its mini steel plant. On 16.07.2014, the revised contract demand was entered into between the first appellant and DPL. As per the respondent the load having been enhanced from 7 MVA to 12 MVA, bills are required to be raised with MF 400 instead of MF 200. On 13.08.2015, DPL informed the appellant that upon enhancement of load to 12 MVA the bills would be raised with the 400 MVA as opposed to 200 MVA. On 14.08.2015, the first appellant requested permission to pay 50% of the said bill and allow 60 installments for payment of the balance 50%. A letter was addressed by DPL to the first appellant on 17.08.2015 to which the appellant responded on 24.08.2015. DPL vide letter dated 27.08.2015 directed the appellant to pay the entire outstanding amount in the supplementary bill in 12 equal installments. Accordi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... disconnected. The writ petition being WPO No. 260 of 2021 was dismissed by order dated 09.08.2021 holding that the critical question would arise in calculating and arriving at any conclusion as to whether there has been any payment of any monthly bill between December 2020 and June 2021 within the time stipulated. Further it was held that it has to be decided as to whether late payment charges (DPS) have been included in the claim of the distribution company either for the period from January 2021 till June 2021 or for the earlier period during which electricity was being supplied by the erstwhile DPL. 3. The learned writ court opined that the CGRO under the Act is fully and completely equipped and qualified to undertake the exercise. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal in APOT No. 117 of 2021 and by judgment dated 17.11.2021 the appeal was allowed with a direction to restore the electricity supply coupled with a direction to the CGRO to decide the dispute connected to the imposition of DPS qua the validity and proportionality. The appellant approached the CGRO and made their submissions both oral and written and after hearing the parties on several....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l and in terms of the said Sub Section, bills should be shown as outstanding. In absence of such compliance, the respondents are not entitled to invoke Section 56(2) of the Act and if permissible under law, remedy is available under Sub Section (1) of Section 56. However, the threat of disconnection is meted out by the respondent by invoking power under Section 56(2) is wholly without jurisdiction. In support of his contention, learned Senior Advocate referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Another Versus Rahamatullah Khan [(2020) 4 SCC 650] , Prem Cottex Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and Others [(2021) SCC Online SC 870] and K.C. Ninan Versus Kerala State Electricity Board and Others [(2023) SCC Online SC 663]. 7. The learned Senior Advocates had elaborately referred to the various documents which have been appended to the petition to demonstrate that in none of the bills which have been raised after 13.08.2015 there is any mention of any outstanding and the relevant column has been left blank and for the first time in the bill dated 07.11.2017, the amount was shown as outstanding ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ulation 3.3.9, the demand for DPS is well within the jurisdiction of the respondent distribution company. It is submitted that the chargeable event for levy of DPS is the payment or part payment of the dues and therefore the appellant cannot contend that the demand made in the year 2017 was barred by limitation. It is submitted that it is incorrect to state that in the bills which were raised during 2015 there was no mention about the DPS. In this regard, learned Senior Advocate has drawn the attention of the court to the Bill dated 13.06.2015 and submitted that in the bill it is clearly mention as to what will be the rate of DPS which will be chargeable depending upon the delay or pro-rated or part thereof. It is submitted that Rs. 9.80 crores was paid by the appellant to DPL and a sum of Rs. 8.81 crores was due and payable to the respondent distribution company upon its merger. The 12 installments given to the appellant commenced from 27.03.2019. 12. On 08.11.2019, the second agreement was entered into and the appellant had made a part-payment and accordingly DPS was calculated reckoning the part-payment paid by the appellant. It is further submitted that the appellant was ful....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onnection under the Act and the Regulations made thereunder. The appellant had entered into an agreement with DPL and in terms of Clause 12 of the said agreement and Clause 13 of the agreement would be relevant. Sub-clause (1) of clause 13 states if the consumer fails/ fail to pay the amount of any bill under the agreement within the due date of the bill referred to, shall give the consumer 15 days notice of an intimation to discontinue the supply of the electricity energy and after the expiry of such period, if payment has not been received in the meantime, may forthwith disconnect the supply until full payment for all obligation pending including charge for the work of disconnection and reconnection has been made. Sub-clause (2) of clause 13 states that for non-payment of any bill within the due date, the consumer shall pay late payment surcharge at the rate specified in the Schedule II to the said agreement. In Schedule II under the column delayed payment surcharge, it is stated that it shall be as per the tariff order issued by the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission from time to time. Therefore, the appellants are precluded and estopped from pleading that no DPC can ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount but from the first instance of non-payment of the concerned charges. Regulation 4.1.4 states that the licensee may disconnect or cut off supply of electricity of any defaulting consumer who fails or neglects to pay the electrify charges and/or other charges due from the consumer as per the electricity bill and/or demand unless subject to fulfilment of the conditions of Regulation 4.1.3, 4.1.1 or 4.1.2 whichever is applicable. Thus, the liability to pay other charges (DPS) would arise as and when a default is committed. It is not in dispute that the appellant did not adhere to the payment schedule which was initially granted by DPL and subsequently, granted by the respondent distribution company by virtue of an agreement on 08.11.2019. We are not concerned about the dues payable to DPL before its merger with the respondent distribution company as it is admitted that no DPS has been charged in respect of any of the payments which were made to DPL though belatedly, and the DPL has been calculated taking into consideration the defaults committed by the appellant from time to time only with regard to the amount of Rs. 8.81 crores which was due and payable by the appellant on the da....