LexPUJA FERRO ALLOYS P LTD. versus STATE OF GOA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 138 : 2025 INSC 217 Puja Ferro Alloys P Ltd. v. State of Goa and Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 2027-2028 of 2012) 14 February 2025 [Dipankar Datta* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant-companies are covered by the notification issued by the State dated 30.09.1991 for the purpose of availing 25% rebate on the tariff chargeable for availing power supply. Headnotes† Electricity Act, 1910 – ss.23, 51-A – Goa (Prohibition of Further Payments and Recovery of Rebate Benefits) Act, 2002 – s.3 – Electricity tariff – Relief of rebate of 25% on electricity tariff in terms of notification dated 30.09.1991 to the appelant companies – By notification dated 30.09.1991 the industrial units which applied for availing power supply for bona fide industrial activities entitled to rebate of 25% on the tariff chargeable to electricity bills for five years from the date electricity supply made available – Supply of electricity to appellant-companies – 25% rebate given only from 01.01.1997 – By Notification dated 31.03.1995, previous notification dated 30.09.1991 was rescinded – Notifications of 1996 amended notification dated 30.09.1991 to include another consumer category and to extend the benefit of rebate to all the industrial units who apply or avail extra high-tension power supply – Thereafter, by Circular dated 31.03.1998, the State suspended the rebate entitlement, however, the said circular did not mention whether the suspension of the rebate given under the notification dated 30.09.1991 or the amending notifications of 15.05.1996 and 01.08.1996 and on 24.07.1998, the notification dated 01.08.1996 was rescinded – Writ petitions – High Court in GR Ispat’s case held that rescission of the notification dated 30.09.1991 would only mean that the benefit was given up from * Author [2025] 3 S.C.R. 139 Puja Ferro Alloys P Ltd. v. State of Goa and Ors. 01.04.1995 and the new industrial units could not apply after 01.04.1995 to obtain the benefit of rebate; that the amendment of the notification after its rescission indicates that the notification dated 30.09.1991 was in existence and operation for those industrial units who had already become entitled to get the benefit of rebate under it, thus, the suspension of the release of rebate was invalid and inoperative; notification dated 24.07.1998 is legal, valid and operative and that the petitioning companies were entitled to 25% rebate in power tariff till 24.07.1998 – GR Ispat’s case upheld by this Court – Thereafter, 2002 Act was passed which specified that those who had already availed benefits of notifications dated 1996 would be liable to refund the amount – Respondents sought recovery from the appellants under the 2002 Act – Challenge to – Division Bench dismissed the petitions upholding the demand notices – Review applications also dismissed – Correctness: Held: High Court rightly held that the appellant-companies are not entitled to the rebate and the impugned demand notices does not suffer from any vice including that of illegality – High Court in GR Ispat’s case held that the challenge against the rescission on the grounds of promissory estoppel against the State is unsustainable as it must yield to the principle of public equity – Thus, the Government has a justifiable ground of supervening public interest to withdraw the grant of rebate in power tariff which was promised in the notifications dated 30.09.1991 and 01.08.1996 – Judgment of GR Ispat attained finality – Supply of electricity was effected to all the appellant-companies, except one, on varying dates beyond 31.03.1995; however, the notification dated 30.09.1991 had life till 31.03.1995 whereafter it stood rescinded – Declaration in Manohar Parrikar’s case that the Notifications dated 15.05.1996 and 01.08.1996 were non-est and void ab initio – Appellant-companies were seeking benefit of these subsequent notifications before the High Court in GR Ispat’s case which was not accepted by the High Court – Considering the ruling by the High Court that they are covered under the notification dated 30.09.1991, they now seek to protect their benefits under the guise of this notification which, in any event, stood rescinded with effect from 01.04.1995 whereas the supply was effected therafter – Division Bench rightly held that 140 [2025] 3 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports the challenge is without any legal basis as
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.