The Assessing Officer And Inspecting Person Need Not Be Same Person Under The Electricity Act: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court bench of Justice Devashis Baruah has held that Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 empowers the Assessing Officer as designated to carry out the provisional assessment and pass the order of provisional assessment.

The petitioner/assessee is a consumer of electricity with a contracted demand of 1001 KVA. A technical inspection of the petitioner's electrical installation was undertaken, and after the inspection, an inspection report was prepared by the visiting APDCL officials showing the petitioner's connected load. Thus, as per the inspection report, there was an excess load of 51 KW. Thereupon, the Area Manager/the Assessing Officer issued a provisional assessment order along with a statement showing the reasons on the basis of the assessment in Format 15. Along with the provisional assessment order, an inspection report in Format 14 and a provisional bill were also forwarded to the petitioner. The petitioner filed its objection before the Assessing Officer.

The petitioner has challenged the inspection report, the final assessment order, the final assessment bill, the disconnection notice as well as the direction to refund all the amounts realised in excess by the petitioner on the basis of the CT ratio of 50/5 Amps instead of 25/5 Amps, i.e., by applying the wrong multiplier factor of Rs. 3000/- instead of Rs. 1500 against the various monthly energy bills right from the date of installation of the meter together with interest as per Section 62(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The issue raised was whether the Assessing Officer for the purpose of making an assessment under Section 126 had to be the same person who had made the inspection.

The petitioner contended that, admittedly, the person who had made the inspection and the person who made the assessment were two different people. The passing of the final assessment order, the issuance of the assessment bill, and the disconnection notice are without jurisdiction and in violation of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, read with the Supply Code, and are liable to be interfered with.

The department contended that the inspection was carried out by a person who was authorised and that the assessment that was carried out was also carried out by a person who was authorised, but the only question which arises for consideration is whether the assessment had to be carried out only by the Assessing Officer who had made the inspection.

The department urged that the inspection report prepared by the officials who were authorised cannot be said to be bad or illegal in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution and, as such, the inspection report can very well be taken into consideration by the other Assessing Officer while making the assessment in terms of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The court held that the assessing officer, in order to make the provisional assessment to the best of his judgement, shall take into consideration the materials which have come into light on the basis of an inspection of any place or premises, or after an inspection of the equipment, gadgets, machines, or devices found connected or used, or after an inspection of records maintained by any person. The materials can be on the basis of such an inspection, search, seizure, etc. carried out by officers duly authorised under Section 135(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

"This Court deems it proper to relegate the petitioner to seek ventilation of its grievances under Section 127 of the Act of 2003 by filing an appeal if it so desires and thereafter, wherein the petitioner shall be entitled to raise all such points as regards the non-compliance with the Supply Code, including violation of Clause 7.4.2 (III) A (b) of the Supply Code. Taking into consideration that the petitioner had filed the writ petition challenging the assessment order and the lis therein was pending, this Court further deems it proper to grant the petitioner an additional 30 days from the date of the instant judgement to file an appeal in terms of Section 127 of the Act of 2003," the order read.