Summary: Background: This case involves several appellants, primarily industrial consumers of electricity, who challenged the Fuel Price Adjustment (FPA) and Quarterly Tariff Adjustment (QTA) determinations made by the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) between 2021 and 2023. The appellants argued that after the 2021 amendment to the NEPRA Act, NEPRA was not properly constituted, and thus its determinations were invalid. They also contended that procedural delays in issuing FPA and QTA adjustments further rendered the determinations void. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals but retained the notifications of the impugned determinations. -----Issues: 1- Whether NEPRA was legally constituted following the 2021 amendment to the NEPRA Act, and if a fresh notification was required for its reconstitution. ----2- Whether NEPRA’s FPA and QTA determinations were valid, given the delays in adhering to statutory timeframes. ----3- Whether the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the determinations but allowing the related notifications to remain in force. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the 2021 amendment to the NEPRA Act, which changed NEPRA’s status to a statutory corporation, did not invalidate NEPRA's previous constitution. It clarified that a fresh notification for NEPRA's reconstitution was not required. NEPRA’s actions were protected under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which preserved the continuity of its authority. Regarding the FPA and QTA determinations, the court found that while NEPRA exceeded the statutory timeframes for issuing the determinations, the absence of penal consequences indicated that these timeframes were directory, not mandatory. As a result, the determinations were upheld as valid. The court also upheld the Tribunal’s decision to set aside the determinations but retain the related notifications. This decision ensured continuity and allowed necessary tariff adjustments until new determinations could be made. -----Citations/Precedents: Saeed Ahmed Vs. The State (PLD 1964 SC 266) Institute of Architects, Pakistan (Lahore Chapter) Vs. Province of Punjab (2016 PTD 1103 Lahore) Commissioner Inland Revenue Rawalpindi Vs. Sarwaq Traders Rawalpindi (2022 SCMR 1333) Qazi Tahir Vs. Secretary, Pakistan Medical Commission (2022 PLC (CS) 805) Flying Board and Paper Products Ltd. Vs. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet Division (2010 SCMR 517) Ghani Global Glass Limited Vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Energy (Power Division), Islamabad (PLD 2020 Lahore 167) ICC Textile Limited through Authorized Representative Vs. Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), Lahore through Chairman (2009 CLC 1343)

Summary: ackground:Nishat Mills Limited filed an appeal in the Islamabad High Court against a consolidated judgment dated February 13, 2024, which partially allowed the appeals made by the appellant. The appellant contested the orders of a Tribunal that set aside the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) determination. The Tribunal's decision was based on the ground that consumers were not involved in the determination process as required by law. Despite this, notifications regarding fuel price adjustment and quarterly tariff adjustment were not suspended or set aside, leading to the issuance of electric bills as per these adjustments.----Issues:Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside NEPRA's determination due to the lack of consumer involvement in the process.The legality and appropriateness of continuing to issue electric bills based on the contested fuel price and quarterly tariff adjustments despite the Tribunal's decision.The entitlement of the appellant to relief pending the resolution of the appeal.-----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Islamabad High Court issued a notice to the respondents, scheduled for April 18, 2024, to address the appellant's contentions. The Court allowed the exemption sought by the appellant, subject to legal exceptions. It further ordered that while the appellant must pay future amounts due as per their bills, these payments will be contingent upon the outcome of the appeal. Additionally, the arrears claimed by the electricity distribution company (DISCO) from the respondent-customers shall be held in abeyance pending the appeal's decision. The Court also mandated that no coercive measures be taken based on the notices issued by the concerned DISCO until the appeal is resolved.The order underscores the Court's recognition of the importance of adhering to statutory requirements, such as involving consumers in the NEPRA determination process, and the need to ensure fairness in billing practices during the pendency of legal proceedings. The decision to hold arrears in abeyance and prevent coercive measures reflects the Court's intent to protect the rights of the parties involved until a final decision is reached.----Citations/Precedents:National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) Act and related regulations regarding consumer involvement in the determination process and tariff adjustments.Legal principles regarding the issuance of interim orders and relief pending the resolution of appeals.

Summary: The Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) had decided against NTDC, which was affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue. However, for the tax year 2015 (subject matter of ITR No.72345 of 2023), the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) took a different stance, ruling in favor of NTDC.The Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) found that the Additional Commissioner Inland Revenue (ADCIR) was unjustified in charging minimum tax on turnover not related to NTDC but being offered for tax by distribution companies. This decision was based on the argument that minimum tax under Section 113 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, cannot be charged twice on the same turnover. The Appellate Tribunal, however, dismissed NTDC's appeal and upheld the Department's appeal based on similar grounds.The judgment outlines several legal questions arising from the controversy, including the applicability of precedent from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, justification for overruling the appellate order, misinterpretation of NTDC's business activities, and the repugnancy of the demanded amount to Section 113(2)(b).The core issue revolves around whether NTDC, as a special purpose vehicle with a transmission license from NEPRA, is primarily engaged in transmission business or involved in the sale and purchase of electricity. The judge emphasizes the need to consider the entire structure of electricity regulation and concludes that NTDC's activities are confined to transmission, as specified in its license. The judgment further notes that the department failed to establish NTDC's engagement in the sale of electricity, and documents, including a NEPRA decision, support NTDC's exclusive role in transmission business.The judgement discusses the role and functions of the National Transmission and Despatch Company (NTDC) in the context of the power sector. The key points include NTDC's responsibility to intimate Distribution Companies (DISCOs) about the generation part of the transfer charge during a billing period, deductions from the transfer charge for Use of System Charges, and the generation of power-electricity sales bills. The document highlights the organizational restructuring plan for NTDC, leading to the establishment of the Central Power Purchasing Agency (CPPA-G) and the Agreement made between CPPA-G and DISCOs for power procurement and transmission.The decision emphasizes the continuity of functions between CPPA-G and its predecessor, CPPA of NTDC, and disputes the claim that a new restructuring plan changed NTDC's role. It delves into the Power Procurement Agency Agreement, Commercial Code, and Market Settlement System, outlining the functions, responsibilities, and obligations of CPPA-G in power procurement, billing, and settlement.The legal analysis addresses the contention that NTDC engages in the sale of electric power, emphasizing its role as an agent for settlement rather than a seller. The decision also interprets relevant sections of the NEPRA Act and SRO 541(I)/2015, providing the statutory framework for NTDC's functions.Ultimately, the decision concludes in favor of NTDC, stating that it does not engage in the sale of electric power and dismissing the tax claims made by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR).

Summary: (a) Electricity Act, 1910----S. 24NEPRA Act, 1997----S. 45 & Consumer Service ManualElectricity disconnection---Recovery of arrears from subsequent allottee---Scope---Petitioner, an employee allotted official accommodation, challenged the disconnection of electricity by SEPCO and demand for arrears (Rs. 800,000/-) attributed to the previous allottee—It was an admitted position that the petitioner was regularly paying electricity bills since the date of her occupation, and a separate new meter had been installed—Held, SEPCO could not demand previous dues from the petitioner without lawful basis, nor disconnect electricity for arrears attributable to a prior occupant—Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910 and Section 45 of the NEPRA Act, 1997, read with the Consumer Service Manual, mandate that disconnection is only permissible upon non-payment of dues by the consumer named on the current meter—In absence of any restraining order and as petitioner continued to pay her dues, disconnection was declared illegal—SEPCO may initiate recovery against the previous allottee or refer the matter to a competent forum such as the Electric Inspector.(b) Service Law & Official Accommodation----Allotment letter---Liability of utilities---Scope---Petitioner's allotment letter explicitly required payment of utility bills from the date of occupation—Responsibility to clear dues of previous occupants was not placed on petitioner—Any arrears owed by prior allottees must be recovered separately under relevant recovery procedures, and petitioner cannot be held liable for the same in law—Respondent-SEPCO’s action of disconnecting supply on that ground was found to be contrary to the terms of allotment and public service fairness.(c) Administrative Law----Public utility obligations---Fair procedure---SEPCO, as a public utility provider, must follow principles of due process before taking coercive steps such as disconnection—Disputes regarding arrears or liability for past consumption must be resolved via Electric Inspector or proper legal forum—Electricity supply cannot be denied to a consumer who is regularly paying their own consumption charges—Public utility bodies are required to act fairly, transparently, and in accordance with law.----Disposition: Petition Allowed in Terms—Electricity Connection to be Restored—Arrears Attributable to Previous Allottee Not Recoverable from Petitioner.

Summary: (Only NEPRA can determine the tariff and adjust electricity based subsidies in the tariff) This judgment pertains to the rationalization of electricity tariffs in Pakistan. The Federal Government sought to establish a uniform tariff throughout the country, applying the same price to electricity for all consumers. Initially, the government determined the tariff for each distribution company (DISCO) and applied to the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) to devise a uniform tariff. However, the government deviated from the established process by independently determining the Schedule of Tariffs (SOT) for K-Electric, instead of NEPRA. To rectify this deviation, the Federal Government issued a corrigendum to adjust the tariff. However, this decision faced legal challenges from consumers who had been enjoying a subsidized rate during off-peak hours. The consumers questioned the withdrawal of the subsidy and contested the corrigendum while simultaneously accepting the uniform tariff determined by the government. In its judgment, the court held that the petitions filed by the consumers were without merit. It emphasized that the determination and adjustment of tariffs should be within the authority of NEPRA, not the Federal Government. The court acknowledged that subsidies are based on government policies and are subject to modification or withdrawal. Therefore, it upheld the corrigendum issued by the government and recommended that future adjustments adhere to the proper process, ensuring NEPRA's involvement in tariff determinations.

Summary: The Supreme Court was tasked with determining several questions, including whether NEPRA has the authority to impose the charges on the appellant company's consumers, whether the determination of charges was arbitrary, the constitutional command regarding electricity matters, and whether the High Court had jurisdiction in the case. The judgment examines the legal provisions applicable to the case, emphasizing that NEPRA has the exclusive power to regulate the provision of electric power services and determine tariffs. The Court disagrees with the High Court's conclusion that the charges were not covered by the definition of "tariff" and explains that NEPRA has broad powers to issue guidelines and procedures for incorporating various tariffs, including the charges, into the tariff structure. (Appeal allowed, order by high court set aside)

Summary: The Supreme Court was tasked with determining several questions, including whether NEPRA has the authority to impose the charges on the appellant company's consumers, whether the determination of charges was arbitrary, the constitutional command regarding electricity matters, and whether the High Court had jurisdiction in the case. The judgment examines the legal provisions applicable to the case, emphasizing that NEPRA has the exclusive power to regulate the provision of electric power services and determine tariffs. The Court disagrees with the High Court's conclusion that the charges were not covered by the definition of "tariff" and explains that NEPRA has broad powers to issue guidelines and procedures for incorporating various tariffs, including the charges, into the tariff structure. (Appeal allowed, order by high court set aside)

Summary: The Supreme Court was tasked with determining several questions, including whether NEPRA has the authority to impose the charges on the appellant company's consumers, whether the determination of charges was arbitrary, the constitutional command regarding electricity matters, and whether the High Court had jurisdiction in the case. The judgment examines the legal provisions applicable to the case, emphasizing that NEPRA has the exclusive power to regulate the provision of electric power services and determine tariffs. The Court disagrees with the High Court's conclusion that the charges were not covered by the definition of "tariff" and explains that NEPRA has broad powers to issue guidelines and procedures for incorporating various tariffs, including the charges, into the tariff structure. (Appeal allowed, order by high court set aside)

Summary: The Supreme Court was tasked with determining several questions, including whether NEPRA has the authority to impose the charges on the appellant company's consumers, whether the determination of charges was arbitrary, the constitutional command regarding electricity matters, and whether the High Court had jurisdiction in the case. The judgment examines the legal provisions applicable to the case, emphasizing that NEPRA has the exclusive power to regulate the provision of electric power services and determine tariffs. The Court disagrees with the High Court's conclusion that the charges were not covered by the definition of "tariff" and explains that NEPRA has broad powers to issue guidelines and procedures for incorporating various tariffs, including the charges, into the tariff structure. (Appeal allowed, order by high court set aside)

Summary: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (XLIX of 2001)------Ss. 113, 120(1)(b) & 122(5)(A)--Filing of income tax return--Claim for exemption being tariffdifferential subsidy--Amended assessment order--Total sale was determined--Issuance of showcause notice--Appeal--Dismissed--Second appeal--Rejected--Subsidy--TDS is amount receivablefrom Government of Pakistan on account of difference between lower than NEPRA Tariff pricecharged from consumers and price notified by NEPRA--Thus is not a subsidy or grant given toQESCO as a bailout package--Electric supply companies were exempt from minimum tax underSection 113 from date of their creation upto date of completion of process of corporatization i.e.till tariff is notified--Such period has already lapsed under Part IV of Second Schedule toOrdinance, no exemption from minimum tax is available to electric supply companies at present--Amount receivable by electric power supply companies from Government of Pakistan onaccount of difference between lower than NEPRA Tariff rate charged to consumers and ratenotified by NEPRA is not subsidy--It is balance price of electricity which is paid by Governmenton behalf of electricity consumers to provide relief to such consumers--Such total amountconstitute gross revenue on account of sale of electricity and such revenue is liable to minimumtax under Section Ordinance unless a specific exemption is brought into part IV of secondSchedule to Ordinance--Tribunal has erroneously referred to Clause (102A) Part I of SecondSchedule to Ordinance while discussing exemption from minimum tax because Part I of SecondSchedule provides exemption from total income only and it has no concern with exemption fromspecific provision which is covered in Part IV of Second Schedule to Ordinance. [