M/s Ashraya Udyog Seva Samithi ® vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. & Anr.

The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The Trust was formed and registered with several objects, such as establishment and maintenance of hostels and boarding houses for needy people, especially women. On 17.04.2012, the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bangalore, granted the Trust an exemption under Section 80(G) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The headquarters of the Trust is located at No.47/1, Model House Street, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-04. The petitioner Trust started a women's hostel at No.33/1 “Meghalaya”, Sannidhi Street, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-04. Earlier, on 03.09.2013, the Assistant Executive Engineer had imposed back billing charges of Rs.75,123/- and Rs.56,273/-. Thereafter, after being satisfied that the petitioner Trust, a charitable institution, was entitled to the exemption, he reversed and set aside the back billing charges. BESCOM had arranged power supply to the said premises by way of one additional installation through the meter bearing No. W2P1540 under LT2A tariff, duly taking note of the exemption granted by the Income Tax Department.

BESCOM Vigilance team inspected the premises and levied back billing charges of Rs.14,70,564/- for 3 years, from June 2014 to May 2017, in relation to three installations, alleging misuse of tariff. When an order was passed on 29.07.2017, the petitioner approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (for short ‘CGRF’). As per the order dated 31.01.2018, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer, directing him to consider the objections filed by the petitioner against the provisional assessment order. On 26.02.2018, the Assessing Officer again passed an order confirming the back billing charges. The petitioner again approached CGRF, challenging the order dated 26.02.2018, which dismissed the complaint of the petitioner vide order dated 20.07.2019. The petitioner has approached the Ombudsman and challenged the order passed by the CGRF. On 17.12.2019, the orders were set aside. The Assessing Officer has filed W.P.No.1678/2022 before this Court and challenged the order dated 17.12.2019. The writ petition was allowed and the order dated 29.07.2017 was quashed. On 06.10.2025, the petitioner filed a detailed representation before the Assessing Officer explaining how he is entitled for exemption. By order dated 11.05.2026, the Assessing Officer upheld the back billing charges imposed on the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 26.02.2018 with a direction to pay the same within 30 days.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has an exemption, which is not restricted to a single premises, and wherever the petitioner's trust is running the institutions, they all have the exemption under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Despite bringing it to the notice of the petitioner, the respondents have failed to consider the same.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner has an appropriate remedy before the appellate authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act. As such, the present writ petition is not maintainable, and the agreement for the premises on which the back-billing charges are levied is not in favour of the petitioner's society. It is submitted that, considering all this, the order has rightly been passed and no interference is called for.

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner has the right of appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act. As far as the facts of the present case are concerned, according to the petitioner, it is a charitable institution and already has the exemption under Income Tax, and even the respondents had granted the exemption. Now, they have taken a U-turn and are refusing to grant the exemption, and they have raised a back-billing charge amounting to Rs.14,00,000/-. If the petitioner has to file an appeal, he has to pay 50% of the amount. In those circumstances, considering that the petitioner is a charitable institution, this Court is of the view that the alternative remedy is not efficacious remedy.

The respondents' reasoning appears to be that, in respect of one premises, they will grant the exemption, and they have granted it earlier in respect of that premises; in respect of the other premises, they will not grant it. This Court is not able to understand that reasoning. The exemption is to the charitable institution, not to a particular premises. The second contention raised is that, as per the lease agreement, the charitable institution is not a party to the said agreement. This Court finds force in the said submission. In those circumstances, balancing the interests of both the parties, this Court is passing the following: