High Court of Karnataka Allows IT Companies to be Classified as Industrial Consumers for Electricity Tariff — BESCOM's Demand for Commercial Tariff Quashed. Software Development and Data Processing Constitute Manufacturing Process Entitling IT Companies to HT 2(A) Industrial Tariff Category Under BESCOM's Own Circular and Precedent.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The judgment involves a batch of writ petitions filed by IT/ITeS companies, including Talisma Corporation Private Limited, Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., and Integra Micro Software Service Private Limited, against the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (BESCOM) and its officers. The petitioners challenged demand notices issued by BESCOM seeking to reclassify them from the industrial tariff category (HT 2(A)) to the commercial tariff category, which would result in higher electricity charges. The petitioners argued that their activities of software development and data processing constitute a manufacturing process, entitling them to industrial classification. They relied on BESCOM's own circular dated 10.11.2006, which classified IT/ITeS companies as industrial consumers, and a previous judgment of the Karnataka High Court in W.P. No.22/2014 dated 5.12.2014, which had already decided the issue in favor of similar IT companies. BESCOM contended that the circular was not binding and that the classification should be based on the nature of the activity, which they argued was commercial. The court analyzed the definition of 'industrial consumer' under the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Tariff) Orders and the BESCOM circular. It held that software development and data processing involve a systematic process of converting raw data into valuable information, akin to a manufacturing process. The court found that BESCOM's demand notices were arbitrary and contrary to its own circular and the earlier judgment. The court quashed the demand notices and directed BESCOM to classify the petitioners under HT 2(A) industrial tariff category, with consequential benefits. The court also warned BESCOM against issuing similar notices in the future and emphasized the binding nature of judicial precedents.

Headnote

A) Electricity Law - Tariff Classification - Industrial Consumer - HT 2(A) Category - Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Tariff) Orders - The court considered whether IT companies engaged in software development and data processing qualify as 'industrial consumers' for electricity tariff purposes. The court held that software development and data processing constitute a 'manufacturing process' and thus the petitioners are entitled to be classified under HT 2(A) industrial tariff category, relying on BESCOM's own circular dated 10.11.2006 and a previous judgment of the same court in W.P. No.22/2014 dated 5.12.2014. (Paras 1-27)

B) Electricity Law - Classification of Consumers - IT/ITeS Sector - BESCOM Circular dated 10.11.2006 - The court examined the validity of BESCOM's demand notices seeking to reclassify IT companies from industrial to commercial tariff. The court held that the circular itself recognizes IT/ITeS companies as industrial consumers, and BESCOM cannot unilaterally deviate from its own circular without proper amendment or regulatory approval. The demand notices were quashed. (Paras 10-27)

C) Electricity Law - Judicial Precedent - Binding Nature - W.P. No.22/2014 - The court followed its earlier judgment in W.P. No.22/2014 dated 5.12.2014, which had already decided the issue in favor of IT companies. The court held that BESCOM's failure to implement that judgment and its continued issuance of contrary demand notices amounted to contemptuous conduct. (Paras 15-27)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether IT/ITeS companies engaged in software development and data processing are entitled to be classified as 'Industrial Consumers' under HT 2(A) tariff category for electricity supply, or whether they fall under commercial tariff category.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the demand notices, and directed BESCOM to classify the petitioners under HT 2(A) industrial tariff category with consequential benefits. The court also warned BESCOM against issuing similar notices in the future.

Law Points

  • Electricity tariff classification
  • Industrial consumer definition
  • HT 2(A) category
  • BESCOM circular
  • IT sector
  • Software development
  • Data processing
  • Manufacturing process
  • Electricity Act 2003
  • Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (KAR) (11) 1

W.P.Nos.57324-325/2015 c/w W.P.No.36174/2017, W.P.No.32770/2013 & W.P.No.7630/2012 (GM-KEB)

2017-11-27

Dr. Vineet Kothari

Sri Devaiah I.S., Smt. Nalina Mayegowda, Sri Shridhar Prabhu, Sri Sriranga, Sri H.V. Devaraju

Talisma Corporation Private Limited, Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Integra Micro Software Service Private Limited

Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (BESCOM) and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petitions challenging demand notices issued by BESCOM seeking to reclassify IT/ITeS companies from industrial to commercial electricity tariff category.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of demand notices and direction to BESCOM to classify the petitioners under HT 2(A) industrial tariff category.

Filing Reason

BESCOM issued demand notices treating the petitioners as commercial consumers instead of industrial consumers, leading to higher electricity charges.

Previous Decisions

The Karnataka High Court in W.P. No.22/2014 dated 5.12.2014 had already held that IT companies are entitled to industrial tariff classification.

Issues

Whether IT/ITeS companies engaged in software development and data processing are entitled to be classified as 'Industrial Consumers' under HT 2(A) tariff category? Whether BESCOM's demand notices seeking to reclassify the petitioners from industrial to commercial tariff are valid?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that software development and data processing constitute a manufacturing process, and BESCOM's own circular dated 10.11.2006 classifies IT/ITeS companies as industrial consumers. They also relied on the judgment in W.P. No.22/2014. Respondents argued that the circular was not binding and that the nature of the petitioners' activities is commercial, not industrial.

Ratio Decidendi

Software development and data processing constitute a 'manufacturing process' as they involve systematic conversion of raw data into valuable information. Therefore, IT/ITeS companies are entitled to be classified as industrial consumers under HT 2(A) tariff category. BESCOM's own circular and previous judicial precedent support this classification, and BESCOM cannot unilaterally deviate from them.

Judgment Excerpts

The court held that software development and data processing constitute a 'manufacturing process' and thus the petitioners are entitled to be classified under HT 2(A) industrial tariff category. BESCOM's demand notices were quashed as arbitrary and contrary to its own circular and the earlier judgment.

Procedural History

The writ petitions were filed in 2012, 2013, 2015, and 2017 challenging various demand notices. They were heard together and disposed of by a common order on 27.11.2017.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
  • Electricity Act, 2003:
  • Companies Act, 1956:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows IT Companies to be Classified as Industrial Consumers for Electricity Tariff — BESCOM's Demand for Commercial Tariff Quashed. Software Development and Data Processing Constitute Manufacturing Process Entitling IT Comp...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Condonation of Delay Applications in Revision Against Small Causes Court Order — Negligence of Counsel Not Sufficient Cause for Delay. Applicants Failed to Show Due Diligence in Filing Revision Within Limitation Period U...