Judgment :- 1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by one M/s.Kamachi Steels Limited, challenging the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent/the Superintending Engineer, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/North, Chennai in letter No.SE/CEDC/N/(O)/AAO/HT/AS/F.E. Tax/D/03 dated 31.12.2003 and quash the same. 2. The petitioner Company is manufacturing steel ingots and obtained High Tension Service Connection bearing No.1612 from the 4th respondent/the Superintending Engineer, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/North, Chennai on 06.11.2000 for a sanctioned load of 1825 KVA. 3. After getting the new Service Connection No.1612on 06.11.2000, the petitioner started production using power from the 4th respondent on 28.11.2000. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent/the Chief Electrical Inspector to Government has also granted provisional approval as required under Rule 63 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 to install machinery by enclosing their approval letter with copy to the Superintending Engineer. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner has also obtained "Form RC" Central Excise Registration Certificate for their new Unit before applying for electricity supply with the 4th respondent. Since the petitioner is entitled for exemption of 5% Additional Tax on their monthly consumption bill, on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.1084, Public Works Department, dated 30.07.1992, for a period of three years from the date of commencement of production of the principal product, the petitioner applied for the exemption of Additional Tax on consumption of energy by submitting applications to the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent has also approved the exemption from levy of additional electricity tax at the rate of 5% to the petitioner from 28.11.2000 to 27.11.2003 vide letter No.17199/A1/2001 dated 17.08.2001. In view of grant of exemption, the respondents did not collect electricity tax from the petitioner. 5. But, in the year 2003, the 4th respondent suddenly issued the impugned letter Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/(O)/AAO/HT/AS/F.E.Tax/D/03 dated 31.12.2003 informing the petitioner that the electricity tax exemption granted to the petitioner stood cancelled from 16.06.2003 in view of the repealing of the old Tamil Nadu Electricity Duty Act, 1929 and the Tamil Nadu Electricity (Taxation on Consumption) Act, 1962 and hence the exemption allowed for the new industrial undertakings under Section 3-A of the Tamil Nadu Electricity (Taxation on Consumption) Act, 1962 was restricted upto 15.06.2003 only. As a result, the 4th respondent has also asked the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.11,49,773.42/-.Since the petitioner also apprehended the risk of disconnection in the event of not paying the above said amount, the present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent is arbitrary and also against the principles of natural justice. 6. Mr.K.Jayachandran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 4th respondent is not entitled to recall or withdraw the exemption once granted to the petitioner since the same has been settled in view of the latest Supreme Court Judgment reported in (2007) 5 SCC 447 (Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd., Vs. Electricity Inspector and Etio and Others). 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the case of the petitioner is not only covered by the above said Judgment, but, this Court also had an occasion to deal with the levy of duties in W.P.No.4860 of 2006 wherein a learned single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 10.03.2010, by applying the ratio laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the Judgment reported in (2007) 5 SCC 447 (Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd., Vs. Electricity Inspector and Etio and Others) allowed the Writ Petition. Therefore, it was pleaded that the petitioner is standing on a better footing than the writ petitioner in W.P.No.4860 of 2006. 8. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, while making attempt to support the impugned order, was not able to say that the order was passed after giving opportunity to the petitioner and was also not able to challenge the reasoned order passed by this Court in W.P.No.4860 of 2006. 9. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner being a new Company established for manufacture of steel ingots, applied for provisional approval as required under Rule 63 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 to install machinery. 9. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner being a new Company established for manufacture of steel ingots, applied for provisional approval as required under Rule 63 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 to install machinery. Subsequently, when the petitioner applied seeking exemption of 5% additional tax on their monthly consumption bill for a period of three years from the date of commencement of manufacture of production of the principal product on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.1084, Public Works Department, dated 30.07.1992, the 2nd respondent, granted approval of the request of the petitioner and granted exemption from levy of Additional Electricity Tax at the rate of 5% to the petitioner from 28.11.2000 to 27.11.2003 vide his letter No.17199/A1/2001 dated 17.08.2001. 11. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the exemption granted by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner being accrued, as rightly held by the Apex Court in (2007) 5 SCC 447 supra the said exemption granted earlier cannot be withdrawn subsequently, that too, without any reason. Even in the impugned order dated 31.12.2003 passed by the 4th respondent, no reason whatsoever has been furnished while rolling back from their own promise given to the petitioner in the form of exemption of 5% Additional Electricity Tax on their monthly consumption bill for a period of three years. 12. In any event, the ratio as well as the observation made by the Apex Court in the Judgment reported in (2007) 5 SCC 447 (Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd., Vs. Electricity Inspector and Etio and Others) is squarely applicable to the present case. Therefore, on the basis of the Judgement of the Supreme Court reported in (2007) 5 SCC 447 (Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd., Vs. Electricity Inspector and Etio and Others),I am of the considered opinion, the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the impugned order which is passed totally contrary to the principles of natural justice is set aside. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.