In Brief
Two distribution licensees (BSES companies) in Delhi challenged APTEL's affirmation of DERC's tariff decisions that disallowed various expenses and changed methodologies during the 'truing up' exercise (adjustment of actual versus projected costs). The Supreme Court held that tariff orders are quasi-judicial and binding; DERC cannot change rules or methodologies during truing up. The Court set aside disallowances of late payment surcharge collections, depreciation allowances, FR/SR employee salaries, and fringe benefit tax. On enforcement sales for electricity theft, the Court ruled that when law 'deems' assessed energy as consumed, it must be treated as full sales for loss calculations. Interest on unransferred security deposits must be allowed as a legitimate expense.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.