APHC010129282009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: 18788 of 2009 Between: 1. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., REP.BY ITS SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, G. RAGHU CHANDRASEKHAR, S/o.K. GANESH, AGED 50 YRS OFFICE, KONDAPALLI 1. ANDHRA PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULARTORY COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SINGARENI BHAVAN, RED HILLS, LAKDIPOOL, HYDERABAD 2. THE SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P.LIMITED, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, RENIGUNTA ROAD, TIRUPATHI-517504. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (OPERATION), THE SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P LTD GROUNDS, VIJAYAWADA 4. THE FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER, GRIEVANCES OF SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF 19-13-65, KESHAVAYANA GUNTA, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS CHAIRPERSON 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: 18788 of 2009 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., REP.BY ITS SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, G. RAGHU CHANDRASEKHAR, S/o.K. GANESH, AGED 50 YRS., VIJAYAWADA LPG REGIONAL OFFICE, KONDAPALLI-KRISHNA DISTRICT-521 228. ...PETITIONER AND ANDHRA PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULARTORY COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SINGARENI BHAVAN, RED HILLS, LAKDIPOOL, HYDERABAD-500004. THE SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P.LIMITED, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, RENIGUNTA 517504. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (OPERATION), THE SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P LTD., NEAR PWD GROUNDS, VIJAYAWADA-520002. THE FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER, GRIEVANCES OF SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P., LIMITED, 65, KESHAVAYANA GUNTA, TIRUPATHI - 517501, CHITTOOR REP. BY ITS CHAIRPERSON. WP_18788_2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3209] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., REP.BY ITS SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, G. RAGHU CHANDRASEKHAR, , VIJAYAWADA LPG REGIONAL ...PETITIONER ANDHRA PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULARTORY COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SINGARENI BHAVAN, RED HILLS, THE SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P.LIMITED, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, RENIGUNTA THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (OPERATION), THE SOUTHERN , NEAR PWD THE FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER, GRIEVANCES OF A.P., LIMITED, 517501, CHITTOOR 2 WP_18788_2009 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (LAW), ANDHRA PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULARTORY COMMISSION, HOLDING FULL ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF OMBUDSMAN, SINGARENI BHAVAN, LAKDIKAPOOL, HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Mr.M.RAVINDRANATH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Mr.VENKAT CHALLA 2. Mr.P SRINIVAS Orders Reserved on : 11.03.2026 Orders Pronounced on : 15.06.2026 Orders Uploaded on : 18.06.2026 3 WP_18788_2009 The Court made the following Order: The controversy involved in the present writ petition is re-categorisation of petitioner’s Liquefied Petroleum Gas(LPG) Bottling Unit from H.T.category-I to H.T.category-II. 2. Brief factual matrix of the case for better understanding may be narrated as follows: Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short ‘HPCL’), a Government of India Enterprise engaged in refining and marketing of petroleum and petroleum products in India, in the course of its business operations established a unit at Kondapalli Village, Krishna District of Andhra Pradesh for the purpose of storage, distribution of Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) and repairs of the cylinders. The said Unit caters the need of the region covering 12 Districts in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. In view of the nature of the product and large scale operations, petitioner, in compliance with the provisions of various Enactments and Rules viz., Indian Explosives Act and Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989 framed in exercise of powers under Sections 6, 8 and 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 etc., obtained requisite permissions for its Unit. It draws LPG from a Pipe line which emanates from Refinery and underground storage fed through import of LPG, by Very Large Carriers Ships of HPCL located at Visakhapatnam and preserve the said 4 WP_18788_2009 LPG, in large volumes. Later, the said LPG is packed into different size cylinders with the help of highly sophisticated imported machinery for the process of packing the said product into such form so as to facilitate its use not only by the ultimate consumer, but also its transport. 3. To avail power supply, petitioner initially applied to the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB) and High Tension Electrical connection was given to the petitioner under HT Category-I (Industry). After the advent of A.P.Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC), in terms of “Tariff Orders” issued by it, petitioner’s Unit fall under H.T.Category-I(Industry). 4. Pursuant to an inspection made by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, D.P.T., Vijayawada on the ground that there was no production activity involved in the petitioner Unit, the 3rd respondent vide Proceedings dated 02.02.2005 re- categorised it from H.T.Category-I to Non-industrial. Petitioner submitted Letter dated 04.02.2005 stating that it’s Unit falls under H.T.Category-I because of the activity / process involved and sought cancellation of the said proceedings of re- classification dated 02.02.2005. Petitioner on 24.02.2005 addressed a letter to the Chairman / Managing Director of APSPDCL with a request to put its’ Unit back in the H.T.Category-I. However, the Petitioner Unit vide Communication dated 29.05.2006 was informed that the category of power tariff has been revised from H.T.Category-I to H.T.Category-II (Non-Industrial) and as such, petitioner’s Unit is liable to pay an amount of Rs.33,44,043/-. 5 WP_18788_2009 5. Petitioner’s representation dated 02.06.2006 to the 2nd respondent also did not yield any positive response. Under the said circumstances, petitioner lodged a complaint before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum-4th respondent on 04.12.2006, which was registered as C.G.No.89/2006-07. The said complaint was disposed of by order dated 26.04.2007 and challenging the same, petitioner filed W.P.No.25107 of 2007. The said writ petition was disposed of in terms of the order dated 16.04.2008 in W.P.No.2185 of 2008. Pursuant to the orders dated 16.04.2008 passed in W.P.No.25107 of 2007, Notice dated 22.08.2008 was issued calling for objections for changing the category from H.T.Category-I to H.T.Category-II, as indicated therein. Petitioner submitted detailed objections dated 03.09.2008. 3rd respondent through proceedings dated 25.04.2009 rejected the objections, against which, petitioner filed C.G.No.6 of 2009-10 before 4th respondent. The said complaint was rejected by order dated 18.05.2009 on the premise that similar complaint C.G.No.89/2006 was disallowed. Petitioner preferred appeal before Ombudsman, but no orders were passed even in the miscellaneous application. Meanwhile, vide impugned proceedings dated 22.08.2009, the 3rd respondent called upon the petitioner to pay the differential amount between H.T.Category-II and H.T.Category-I to a tune of Rs.39,28,958.23 ps. 6. Heard Mr.B.V.Krishna Rao, learned counsel representing Mr.M.Ravindranath Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard 6 WP_18788_2009 Mr.Challa Venkat, learned counsel representing respondents 2 & 3. Perused the material on record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the various averments in the writ affidavit and the activities / operations of HPCL Unit in question made elaborate submissions. He contends that as per the Tariff Notifications issued by the erstwhile A.P.State Electricity Board (APSEB) at the relevant point of time, the petitioner Unit was falling under H.T.Category-I (Industry). He submits that the petitioner’s Bottling Units fall within the purview of industrial purpose under H.T.Category-I as its operations involve Manufacturing, Processing and Preserving goods for sale. He submits that pursuant to the Notice dated 22.08.2008 of the 3rd respondent, petitioner submitted detailed objections / explanation and without considering the same, the impugned order has been passed. Explaining the circumstances in which the present writ petition was filed, he further submits that in fact, the matter is squarely covered by two decisions in the writ petitions filed by the very same petitioner in respect of its other Units, that the said decisions attained finality and thus, relief sought for in the present writ petition can be granted. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Mumbai v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited1. 1 (2017) 15 SCC 254 7 WP_18788_2009 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-DISCOM refuted the said contentions, while raising an objection with regard to maintainability of writ petition. It is his contention that under Section 42 (5) of the Electricity Act, the petitioner has a remedy against the impugned proceedings, that in fact the petitioner approached the Ombudsman. Placing reliance on the decisions rendered by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Kochi LPG Regional Office, Irumpanam, P.O., Kochi v. Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission2 and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commissioner & Ors.3 , he submits that in respect of the very same petitioner and the activities undertaken by it, the learned Tribunal consisting of technical members and experts on the subject, rejected similar contentions and upheld the re-categorisation of petitioner’s units from H.T.Category-1 (industrial category) to H.T. Commercial Category. He submits that as the grievance of the petitioner is that the objections to the show cause notice were not dealt with in a proper perspective, the matter may be remanded for passing appropriate orders. He also made submissions distinguishing the decision of the learned Judge in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., v. The Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd.,4 relied on by counsel for the petitioner and also referred to the Principles of the Statutory Interpretation to buttress his 2 2016 SCC OnLIne APTEL 112 3 MANU/ET/0031/2025 4 (2016) 2 ALT 349 8 WP_18788_2009 submission that words used in a particular Statute, cannot be used to interpret the same words in a different Statute especially when the two Statutes are not para materia. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reliance Infrastructure Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Others5. 9. On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the points that arise for consideration by this Court are: 1. Whether the writ petition is entertainable in the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Whether the matter is covered by the decisions rendered in favour of the petitioner on the earlier occasion? 10. At the outset, it may be pertinent to reiterate that prior to the issuance of proceedings dated 22.08.2009, the 3rd respondent through Letter dated 02.02.2005 re-categorized petitioner’s Unit from H.T.Category-I to H.T.Category- II w.e.f.22.12.2004. W.P.No.25107 of 2007 challenging re-categorisation of petitioner’s Unit from H.T.Category-I to H.T.Category-II (non-industrial) was disposed of in terms of the orders passed in W.P.No.2185 of 2008 dated 16.04.2008, operative portion of which reads as follows: “1. Within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, respondent No.3 shall give notice to the petitioner against the proposed change of classification. 2. Within a period of two weeks thereafter, the petitioner shall file its objections. 5 (2019) 3 SCC 352 9 WP_18788_2009 3. On receipt of objections, respondent No.3 shall dispose of the same before taking a final decision on the proposed reclassification. 4. Since the action of reclassification is declared void, the respondents shall adjust the excess amount paid by the petitioner towards differential tariff in the immediate future electricity bills.” 11. As seen from the prayer in Writ Petition No.25107 of 2007, petitioner also challenged the order of the 4th respondent therein dated 26.04.2007 in C.G.No.89 of 2006-07 confirming re-categorization made by 3rd respondent vide Letter dated 02.02.2005. By virtue of the disposal of the said writ petition in terms of orders in W.P.No.2185 of 2008, the order dated 26.04.2007 is virtually set aside. In view of the same, the 3rd respondent was required to pass orders by considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner. However, without discussing various activities of Manufacturing, Processing and Preserving goods (L.P.G. for sale), by a cryptic order dated 25.04.2009 impugned herein, he opined that processing and preserving, packing, repairs are linked with a profit motive. There is no consideration of the said operations with reference to activities envisaged in H.T.Category-I (industry), which is fatal and renders the order legally unsustainable. 12. At this juncture, it may also be relevant to mention that petitioner against the said order carried the matter before the 4th respondent vide C.G.No.6/09- 2010 and the same was rejected on the premise that the petitioner’s grievance is similar to the complaint registered vide C.G.No.89/2006-07/Vijayawada. The said 10 WP_18788_2009 view is not sustainable as the orders in C.G.No.89/06-07 dated 26.04.2007 were virtually set aside by the High Court in W.P.No.25107 of 2007. Though it appears that an appeal was preferred against the orders dated 18.05.2009, no details are forthcoming as to the status of the same, much less the result. In the normal circumstances, a direction to dispose of the appeal, would have been passed. However, in the absence of any specific information / details with regard to pendency of appeal, if any, no useful purpose would be served by issuing such a direction. Further, the writ petition was admitted in the year 2009 and interim orders were granted on 08.09.2009. In the light of the contention that the matter is covered by decisions in favour of the petitioner on the earlier occasion, this Court deems it appropriate to examine the matter on merits by entertaining the writ petition instead of driving the petitioner to avail / pursue other remedies. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 13. Insofar as the activities / operations of the petitioner are concerned, a learned Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh had an occasion to deal with the same elaborately in W.P.No.23037 of 2012 (referred to 4th supra). The learned Judge examined the matter not only with reference to Manufacturing, Processing but also Preserving goods for sale and formulated a point as to whether the activity being carried on by petitioner falls within the phraseology contained in the Tariff Notification issued by the APERC for the years 2001-02 to 2004-05 for H.T.Category-I. 11 WP_18788_2009 14. While opining that one of the activities undertaken by the petitioner in conveying petroleum products from its storage points at Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam involves processing, Learned Judge answered the questions as to whether the petitioner is involved in the activity of Preserving the goods for sale. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: “53. Respondent No. 3 has elaborately dealt with this aspect and observed that the activity undertaken by the subject Unit does not amount to preservation and it only amounts to storage of goods and that therefore it will not fall under HT-I category. In arriving at this conclusion, respondent No. 3 has heavily relied upon the order of the Vidyut Ombudsman in Appeal No. 16 of 2006. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that by setting aside proceedings dated 1-2-2005 of respondent No. 3, which was confirmed in the above mentioned appeal by the Vidyut Ombudsman, this Court has impliedly set aside the Vidyut Ombudmans order also and that therefore placing reliance on the said order by respondent No. 3 is not correct. It is unnecessary to render any finding on this aspect for the reason that this Court is independently examining this issue and the opinion of the Vidyut Ombudsman expressed in the previous round of litigation has no relevance in the present case. 54. Respondent No. 3 opined that like any petrol pump, the petitioners subject Unit is involved in bulk storage and that such bulk storage does not constitute preservation of goods. He has further held that the word preservation is commonly understood as the activity of protecting any material from perishing/decay/damage and that the pumping activity undertaken for movement of POL over long distances across the State for marketing purpose does not find place in HT Category-I. While referring to the clarification issued by the erstwhile APSEB in 1998 in Memo No. CE/Comml)/ADE-2/Misc. Tariffs/D. No. 511/98, dated 22-6-1998, on which heavy reliance was placed by the petitioner, respondent No. 3 has observed that supply is not being utilized for preservation of goods but for bulk storage of POL and filling of tankers just like petrol pumps and only through pipeline operation without there being any process involved and that therefore the said Memo is not applicable to the subject Unit of the petitioner. 55. The phrase preserve is not defined in the extant Tariff Order. Undoubtedly, between the acts of storing and preservation, the latter requires an extra effort than the one required for mere storage. For example, goods which are not perishable in nature are those which do not require any extra effort in storing them. In contrast, goods which are subject to natural decay and those which are inflammable, volatile etc., require observance of extra precautions in storing them. The activity of applying these precautions 12 WP_18788_2009 may be called preservation of goods. In the context of Section 2(c) of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 and Section 16(2)(a) of Salarjung Museum Act 1961, in Ramanatha Aiyars Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd Edition, the following meaning is ascribed to the word preservation: 56. The act of keeping safe from injury, harm or destruction. Another meaning explained by the same author to the word preserve is: 57. The word preserve means to keep; to secure; to uphold; and when used in a statute intended to preserve the public peace it means to secure that quiet order and freedom from agitation or disturbance which is guaranteed by the laws. 58. To maintain; to manage or retain for the rightful owner, to keep safe from harm or injury. 59. The measures undertaken by the petitioner for bulk storage of POL in its Units in various locations involve sophisticated technology because of the highly combustible and volatile nature of the products. The said Units are equipped with technically complicated equipment. 60. Admittedly, cold storage Units are included in HT Category-I by the respondents even though neither manufacturing nor processing activity is undertaken by those Units. When the petitioner made a reference to cold storage Units, respondent No. 3 has drawn a distinction in the following manner: 61. The appellant has quoted the classification of Cold storages, Rice mills and Effluent treatment plants under HT Category-I. Though there is no manufacturing activity involved in cold storage units they are classified under HT Cat-I since their activity is preservation of goods. 62. In my opinion, respondent No. 3 has over-simplified the activity undertaken by the petitioner in preserving the POL products. Indeed, compared to the efforts required by the petitioner to preserve the highly inflammable and combustible POL products, the efforts involved in preserving goods in cold storages are negligible. In the latter case, all that is required is maintenance of low temperatures to prevent goods such as vegetables, fruits etc., from perishing and being subjected to natural decay. On examining the true nature of the petitioners activity, the erstwhile APSEB issued the above mentioned Memo dated 22-6-1998, which reads as under: 63. Sub : - HT Supply to M/s. I.O.C. Limited and M/s. HPCL, Kondapally and Sanathnagar Classification under Category-I Regarding. 64. Assistant Divisional Engineer/DPE/Vijayawada and Divisional Engineer/DPE/Hyderabad have inspected the HT services of M/s. I. Operation Circle (sic : IOC) Limited and M/s. HPCL Kondapally and 13 WP_18788_2009 Sanathnagar, respectively and have requested the concerned Superintending Engineer Operation (Vijayawada and Hyderabad North Circle) to classify the above service under H.T. Category-II on the plea that no production activity is involved in their premises and advised to issue back bills from 11/90 onwards. The Superintending Engineer, Operation, Vijayawada and North Circle/Hyderabad have sought clarification from Board on this matter. 65. The subject has been examined in detail. The above companies are engaged in the activity of preservation of petroleum products for sale and distributing to various places in bulk loads. This activity falls under HT Category-I as per the tariff notifications issued from time to time and even as per the latest notification issued in B.P.Ms. No. 32, dt.29-7-96. 66. The Superintending Engineer, Operation, Vijayawada and North/Hyderabad Circle and Superintending Engineer, DPE, Vijayawada, Hyderabad are advised not to re-classify M/s. I.O.C. Limited and HPCL under HT Category-II, but continued to classify under HT Category-I only. 67. The above reproduced contents of the Memo clearly show that the APSEB has recognized the storage of POL by the petitioner as constituting preservation of goods. While accepting existence of the said clarification, respondent No. 3 was however not prepared to follow the decision of the predecessor organization by making an artificial distinction between preservation and bulk storage of POL. The petitioner has also referred to and relied upon order dated 23-8-2005 of the TNERC, Chennai pertaining to storage of LPG of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation wherein it has held that the activity of the said Unit is nothing but an industrial activity falling under HT Industrial tariff.” 15. The learned Judge ultimately allowed the writ petition by recording conclusions at Para No.68, which reads as follows: 68. The question whether an activity which does not involve manufacture of goods can still be considered as an industrial activity or not, depends upon the interpretation of the extant statutory provisions / notifications. Going by the language of the Tariff Order, it is clear that even if no manufacturing activity is undertaken, it is enough if a consumer carries on the activity of processing and / or preserving of goods for sale. From the undisputed facts pleaded by the petitioner and in the light of the discussion undertaken above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has been utilizing power from the respondents for the activity of both processing and preservation of goods for sale and therefore it is entitled to be classified as a consumer falling under HT Category-I. The order of 14 WP_18788_2009 respondent No.3 cannot therefore be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. 16. Further, in respect of the petitioner’s another Unit located at Veeralankapalli Village, East Godavari District, through a letter dated 10.10.2006, the 3rd respondent therein categorized the same under H.T.Category-II. Challenging the said action, petitioner filed W.P.No.10977 of 2009. Another learned Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature for the State of Andhra Pradesh and the State of Telangana while referring to above cited decision and an unreported decision of Bombay High Court in W.P.No.9455 of 2011, dated 19.01.2012 allowed the writ petition, the relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: “In so far as the other aspect whether the activity of running a gas bottling plant is a Commercial activity or a manufacture activity, prima facie, I find that neither the CGRF nor the Ombudsman have considered the relevant provisions of the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Gas Cylinder Rules 2004. The petitioner has elaborately explained before the Authority below that the process of the industry is not simple refilling LPG Cylinder. It is explained that the activity comprises of LPG suction, vapour distribution, degasification, compression of LPG vapour, external and internal cleaning, hydro pressure test, refilling, sealing, quality control etc. Prima facie, the aforesaid activity with contribute a “Manufacturing Activity”. Section 4 (h) of the Explosive Act, 1884 defines the word “manufacture” and the same reads thus:- (h) “manufacture” in relation to an explosives includes the process of- (1) dividing the explosive into its component parts or otherwise breaking up or unmaking the explosives, or making fit for use any damaged explosive; and (2) re-making, altering or repairing the explosive” 15 WP_18788_2009 In exercise of the power conferred by Sections 5 and 7 of the Explosives Act, 1884, the Central Government has framed the Gas Cylinder Rules, 2004. Rule 2 (XXXIII) defines the word “manufacture of gas” which reads thus:- (xxxiii) “manufacture of gas” means filling of a cylinder with any compressed gas and also includes transfer of compressed gas from one cylinder to any other cylinder.” The Petitioner had relied upon various Judgments before the Electricity Ombudsman, but unfortunately those Judgments have not been discussed and considered. The Petitioner had relied upon the Judgment in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd v/s. State of Gujarat & Others wherein Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited was also a party and the said Judgment is in respect of the Gas Bottling Plant, Special Civil Application No.6220 of 2001 was filed by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. In the said Judgment, the question whether the activity of a Gas Bottling Plant is the manufacturing activity or not, was specifically raised. There the High Court had considered the provisions of The Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the Gas Cylinder Rules 1981 (Rules which were in force prior to the making of Gas Cylinder Rules, 2004). The High Court has clearly held that the activity of a Gas Bottling Plant is a manufacturing activity. I respectfully agree with the aforesaid Judgment of the Gujarat High Court.” 17. Learned Judge, ultimately issued a direction to treat the petitioner / HPCL as H.T.Category-I consumer. In fact, in the said case, the service connection was initially released under H.T.Category-II. 18. In the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (referred to 1 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court examined the issue as to whether Bottling of LPG as under taken by the assessee / HPCL is a process which amounts to 16 WP_18788_2009 ‘production’ or ‘manufacture’ for the purposes of Sections 80 HH, 80-I, 80-IA of Income Tax Act? One of the contentions advanced on behalf of the Appellant Department was that process of Bottling LPG cylinder in domestic use does not amount to manufacture. After referring to the provisions of relevant enactments and decisions, the Apex Court rejected the appeal, inter alia discussing about word manufacture and production and confirmed the order of ITAT. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows: “21. Keeping the aforesaid distinction in mind, let us take note of the process of LPG bottling that is undertaken by the assessees herein and about which there is no dispute. It has come on record that specific activities at the assessees' plant include receiving bulk LPG vapour from the oil refinery, unloading the LPG vapour, compression of the LPG vapour, loading of LPG in liquefied form into bullets, followed by cylinder filling operations. The stages of these activities are as under: (a) Bulk LPG is received in the bottling plant through road tankers/rail wagons; (b) The LPG is unloaded into spheres/bullets through LPG compressors which use variable levels of pressure for suction, unloading and vapour recovery; 17 WP_18788_2009 (c) Refilling/bottling of LPG in cylinders by compressing the same into liquid form; and (d) Capping, fixing of seals and safety valves prior to storage and loading of filled cylinders. 22. Thus, after the bottling activities at the assessees' plants, LPG is stored in cylinders in liquefied form under pressure. When the cylinder valve is opened and the gas is withdrawn from the cylinder, the pressure falls and the liquid boils to return to gaseous state. This is how LPG is made suitable for domestic use by customers who will not be able to use LPG in its vapour form as produced in the oil refinery. It, therefore, becomes apparent that LPG obtained from the refinery undergoes a complex technical process in the assessees' plants and is clearly distinguishable from the LPG bottled in cylinders and cleared from these plants for domestic use by customers. 23. It may be relevant to point out that keeping in view the aforesaid process, ITAT arrived at the specific findings in support of its decision, which are as under: 23.1. There is no dispute that LPG produced in the refinery cannot be directly supplied to the consumer for domestic use because of various reasons of handling, storage and safety. 23.2. LPG bottling is a highly technical and complex activity which requires precise functions of machines operated by technically expert personnel. 23.3. Bottling of LPG is an essential process for rendering the product marketable and usable for the end customer. 23.4. The word “production” has a wider connotation in comparison to “manufacture”, and any activity which brings a commercially new product 18 WP_18788_2009 into existence constitutes production. The process of bottling of LPG renders it capable of being marketed as a domestic kitchen fuel and, thereby, makes it a viable commercial product. 24. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid activity would definitely fall within the expression “production”. We agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the assessees that the definition of “manufacture of gas” in Rule 2(xxxii) of the Gas Cylinders Rules, 2004 also supports the case of the assessees inasmuch as gas distribution and bottling is treated as manufacturing or producing gas. We are also inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the assesses that various High Courts have, from time to time, decided that bottling of gas into cylinder amounts to production and, therefore, claim of deduction under Sections 80-HH, 80-I and 80-IA would be admissible. Another important aspect which was highlighted by the learned counsel for the assessees was that identical issue whether bottling of gas into cylinder amounts to production for claim of deduction under the Act has been considered by various High Courts and decided in the affirmative but those decisions were not challenged by the Department. The cases specifically referred were Puttur Petro Products (P) Ltd. v. CIT [Puttur Petro Products (P) Ltd. v. CIT, 2013 SCC OnLine Kar 8534 : (2014) 361 ITR 290] and Central U.P. Gas Ltd. v. CIT [Central U.P. Gas Ltd. v. CIT, 2016 SCC OnLine All 2087] .” 19. In the light of the above referred decisions which apply on all fours, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 20. So far as the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the DISCOM is concerned, learned APTEL was considering the appeals in the context of re- categorisation / re-classification of Bottling Plants of appellants / HPCL in the 19 WP_18788_2009 Tariff orders of Tamilnadu State Electricity Regulatory Commission and Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission. By virtue of the Tariff Orders of the said commissions, the activities of the HPCL was examined as to whether the same fall within the commercial activity., but not with reference re-classification by the Discom authorities, as in the case on hand, wherein the activities / operations of the petitioner Unit squarely fall within the purview of H.T.Category-I which reads as follows: H.T.Category-I This tariff is applicable for supply to all H.T.Industrial Consumers, Industrial purpose shall mean manufacturing, processing and / or preserving goods for sale, but shall not include Shops, Business Houses, Offices, Public Buildings, Hospitals, Hotels, Hostels, Choultries, Restaurants, Clubs, Theatres, Cinemas, Railway Stations and other similar premises not withstanding any manufacturing, processing or preserving goods for sale. The Water Works of Municipalities and Corporations and any other Government organizations come under this category. Information Technology units identified and approved by the Consultative Committee on IT industry (CCITI) constituted by Govt. Of A.P. also fall under this category. Whereas, H.T.Category-II, non-industrial, reads as follows: H.T.Category-II non-industrial This tariff is applicable to all H.T.Consumers other than those covered under other H.T. Categories. 21. No doubt aforementioned decisions are rendered by Tribunal consisting of technical members. However judgments rendered by learned Judges of the High 20 WP_18788_2009 Court referred to supra, will have binding precedence over the orders of the Tribunals. It also appears that the said orders are under challenge before the Apex court. In the absence of any restrictive definition / meaning in the Tariff Notification / Order, re-classification of the petitioner’s Unit by the Discom authorities fall foul of the expression Industrial purpose which shall mean manufacturing, processing and preserving goods for sale covered under H.T.Category-I. 22. Though the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 sought to impress upon the Court by referring to principles of Statutory Interpretation, as also decision in Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., the same are of no help. In the light of the decisions referred to supra, his contentions are rejected and the Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 23. For the aforegoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings are set aside. The differential amount of H.T.Category-I and H.T.Category-II Tariff collected from the petitioner, if any, shall be refunded or adjusted in the monthly consumption bills. No costs. Consequently, all pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA BLV Dt. 15. 06.2026 21 WP_18788_2009 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Writ Petition No: 18788 of 2009 Date: 15.06.2026 BLV