Skip to main content

State Commission cannot re-determine tariff of companies if already determined by Central Commission

In Bhakra-Beas Management Board (BBMB) v. Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (PSERC),  order dated 6.09.2017, while deciding an appeal, the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity  inter alia held that the State Commission overstepped its jurisdiction while limiting the liability of PSPCL towards the appellant and exceeded the scope of the order of this Tribunal by going into the issue of apportionment of costs between the power and irrigation wings of BBMB.

The appellant, BBMB is a Generating Company involved in the inter-state transmission of electricity. Respondent 2, PSPCL is the successor entity of the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board. The appeal was filed under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the order passed by the State Commission wherein the State Commission determined the ARR and tariff of PSPCL for FY 2016-17, including the cost of generation and inter-state transmission of electricity from projects operated and maintained by the appellant.

The Tribunal while deciding the appeals dealt with the question that, whether in terms of Section 79 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Rule 8 of the Electricity Rules, 2005, the State Commission had jurisdiction to examine the methodology being followed by BBMB regarding apportionment of costs between its power and irrigation wing and whether the State Commission exceeded the scope of the order of this Tribunal by going into the issue of apportionment of costs between the power and irrigation wings of BBMB?

The Tribunal perused the above-mentioned provisions and held that it is not open to the State Commission to re-determine the tariff of the generating companies whose tariff is determined by the Central Commission under Section 79 of the Act. What is left to the State Commission is that they may determine whether a Distribution Licensee in the State should enter into Power Purchase Agreement or procurement process with such generating companies based on the tariff determined by the Central Commission.

On the issue of jurisdiction, it was held that the Central Commission has the jurisdiction in matters of tariff related to the appellant and the State Commission was not supposed to adjudicate the tariff matters of the appellant. The State Commission went into the details of the submissions. This amounts to re-determination of the tariff of the appellant which falls under the jurisdiction of the Central Commission. The State Commission overstepped its jurisdiction while limiting the liability of PSPCL towards the appellant and also exceeded the scope of the order of this Tribunal by going into the issue of apportionment of costs between the power and irrigation wings of BBMB.

Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2017/10/05/state-commission-cannot-re-determine-tariff-of-companies-if-already-determined-by-central-commission-under-s-79-of-electricity-act/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more