Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. In response, the petitioner submitted explanation dated 25.07.2012 stating that, it was engaged only in software development and that the industrial tariff was correctly applied. Further, the office of the Development Commissioner, MEPZ has certified that the petitioner was engaged in software development only in the facility. After explanation the matter was put to rest. Therefore, the petitioner understood that the petitioner's explanation was accepted and the claim of tariff under HT Tariff-III was dropped. After more than eight years, on 19.10.2020, once again the respondent made demand for the period April 2009 to November, 2011 by the show cause notice dated 19.10.2020. It was raised after the petitioner approached the respondent for no objection certificate for green power. Once again, the petitioner submitted explanation dated 28.10.2020, reiterating the facts that it was engaged only in software development and also submitted SOFTEX returns in support of its statement. In pursuant to the same, the respondent raised high tension bill dated 08.01.2021 for the month of December, 2020 and added a amount of Rs.6,76,09,540.12 as adjustment charges pursuant to the impugned proceedings.

5.1. He further submitted that due to the presence of utilization for commercial activities, the assessment of consumptions of the past and future should be billed under commercial tariff until segregation of such commercial activities based on Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission's order dated 11.08.2017 is erroneous as well as arbitrary. The petitioner never leased out any part of its premises to any branded service providers in its food court which is solely for its employee's welfare and has no commercial intent. The petitioner does not even charge any water and electricity charges supplied to the service provider. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Though the service providers are running in their brand name, it doesn't mean that they are running for profit. Therefore, the commercial tariff would not apply for the service providers of the petitioner. The service providers in turn provide services to the employees of the petitioner at subsidized rates and hence there is no revenue for the petitioner from the sale of foodstuff etc. The welfare activity has no commercial intent. Therefore, the petitioner is not carried out any Information Technology Enabled Service and it cannot be classified under commercial tariff. In fact, the certificate issued by the Development Commissioner, MEPZ and the SOFTEX forms are confirmed that the petitioner is carrying only software development and does not carry any commercial activities. That apart, the consumption of electricity power for these service providers do not involve more than 4% of the energy consumed by them.