MARMAGOA STEEL LTD Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Respondents waives service. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith.

(2.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is impugning the demand notice dated 3rd March 2011 under which a demand of Rs.86,32,75,991/- has been raised. It is seeking a direction to the respondents to calculate the amount of 25% rebate due to it on the basis of the order dated 21st January 1999 and 13th February 2001 passed by this Court and the Supreme Court and refund the balance amount due to it. Prayer clause (c) of the petition reads as under: (c) to direct the respondent to reimburse the balance 25% rebate arrears amounting to a sum of Rs.4 crore as the principal amount and Rs.149 crore as the interest @ 24% per annum thereon i.e a total sum of Rs.153 crore approximately as on 1st October 2010 as per the guidelines laid down in the judgment of this Hon ble Court dated 21.01.1999;

(3.) The facts necessary to appreciate the challenge are that the petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and carrying on manufacture of speciality Steel for Automobile Sector, Defence, Railways etc. It claims to be a Sick Industrial Unit. The petitioner submits that at the Cabinet Meeting held on 16th June 1991 the State Cabinet decided that water and power be supplied to new industrial units at a concessional rate on the commercial tariff. Based on this cabinet decision on 30th September 1991, a notification was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by section 23 read with section 51A of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. A copy of this notification is annexed as Annexure P-2 . On 2nd December 1991 the petitioner-company for the first time availed 24 MVA power supply to steel plant at Curtorim and thus became entitled for 25% rebate for five years under the aforesaid notification. On 30th May 1992 the petitioner applied to the respondent No.2 for implementation of the rebate scheme. On 8th July 1992 the petitioner was told to approach the Industries Department in the matter which it did on 17th August 1992. The petitioner made certain representations for implementation and release of 25% benefit of tariff. It is the case of the petitioner that during the entire entitlement period of five years i.e from 2nd December 1991 till 1st December 1996 the petitioner went on paying its full monthly bills whenever possible and sometimes after adjusting 25% rebate but never less than 75% of the total bill. Simultaneously, it requested the respondent to grant and adjust the 25% rebate benefit to it. On 31st March 1995 another notification was issued by respondent No.1 rescinding the earlier notification dated 30th September 1991 with effect from 1st April 1995. Thus, the rebate scheme was withdrawn for those industries who would avail power supply on or after 1st April 1995. Reliance is placed on a copy of this notification which is annexed as Annexure P-3 . It is submitted that this aspect was further clarified by guidelines framed by respondents on the basis of which actual implementation of the rebate promised under the notification dated 30th September 1991 was started from September 1996. Reliance is placed on Clause IV of these guidelines and a certificate dated 6th August 1996 issued by the Director of Industries and Mines. On 15th May 1996 the respondent No.1 issued a notification to amend the above rescinded notification by substituting the words High Tension , Extra-High Tension and Low Tension power supply in place of the words High Tension and Low Tension power supply. By another notification dated 1st August 1996 the respondent No.1 in supersession of the September 1991 notification directed that all industrial units who applied or availed of power supply on or after 1st October 1991 and were certified by the Electricity Department eligible for concessional tariff would be entitled to 25% rebate on prevailing energy charges only for a period of five years from the date of supply of electricity to them.