Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The High Court held Clause 6.7 of the KERC Captive Verification Procedure introducing a dynamic “Unitary Qualifying Ratio” based on actual consumption contrary to Rule 3 Electricity Rules, 2005 and the proportionality benchmark laid down by the Supreme Court in Dakshin Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. v. Gayatri Shakti Paper and Board Ltd..
The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity had remanded matter to Central Electricity Regulatory Commission to reconsider issues pertaining to station heat rate, carrying cost, and increase in VAT, Entry Tax, etc. due to change in law, force majeure events affecting petitioner’s project.
Calcutta High Court held that the liability to pay other charges (DPS) would arise not from the date when the bill was first raised but from the first instance of non-payment of the concerned charges,
Calcutta High Court observed that no sum due will be recoverable from any consumer after a period of two years from the date when such sum first became due unless such sum was shown continuously recoverable as arrears of charges of electricity supply.
The Electricity Act, 2003 does not prescribe one dominant method to determine tariff as it seeks to distance the State Governments from the determination and regulation of tariff, placing such power completely within the ambit of the Appropriate Commissions.
No. JERC : 23/2018—In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 181 read with Section 50, of the Electricity Act, 2003 (Act