Balmukund Concast Limited Vs Bihar State Power holding Company Limited (Patna High Court)
Conclusion: Once the State Government had extended the benefit under the particular scheme, the same could not be withdrawn by the Electricity Department basing on the audit report. In absence of any evidence of theft being committed by assessee, the benefit of Intensive Policy could not be withdrawn.
Held: Assessee was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of iron rods and having factories in the district of Patna. It had taken electrical connection from the Bihar Electricity Board. Assessee’s Industrial Unit was qualified for the benefit under the Industrial Incentive Policy, Bihar 2006 and had sought benefit of AMG/MMG (Minimum Monthly Charges) w.e.f. 01.04.2006 for five years i.e. till 31.03.2011. The High Powered Committee had allowed the application of assessee granting benefit under the Incentive Policy by giving exemption of MMC since 01.04.2006. Accordingly, assessee filed an application before the Financial Controller I of the Bihar State Electricity Board for refund of excess minimum monthly charges collected against KVA demand at the earliest. Thereafter, refund of Rs. 92,30,806/- was allowed by the then Bihar State Electricity Board, now Bihar State Power Holding Company in the year 2011. After lapse of about 4 years, the benefit of Incentive Policy 2006 was disallowed and the supplementary provisional bill was issued on the basis of the Audit report by the Assistant Audit Officer. The said audit objection was on the basis of an opinion, that in the case of tampering/theft which was an unlawful activities no incentive could be given to an unit, in terms of the Industrial Incentive Policy, 2006. The incentive should not be given for the period for which the bill under Clause 11.4 of the Code was raised. It was held that the bills could not be based on the audit objection. Furthermore, the Intensive Policy, which was being extended to assessee could not be withdrawn based on the audit report. Admittedly, it was not the case of the respondents that assessee had committed theft of electricity or had used the electricity for unauthorized purpose. Once the State Government had extended the benefit under the particular scheme, the same could not be withdrawn by the Electricity Department basing on the audit report. Admittedly, the benefit was extended to assessee basing on the High Powered Committee report, which was constituted by Memo No. 506 dated 11.02.2011 including the members of Energy Department. In absence of any evidence of theft being committed by assessee, the benefit of Intensive Policy could not be withdrawn.
