Electricity Act, 2003 - s. 86(1 )(f), 17 4 - Limitation Act,

1963 - ss. 3, 14, Schedule - Disputes between /icencees

and power generating company- Bill for capacity charges-

Claim for reimbursement of minimum alternate Tax (MAT) -

Whether the Limitation Act, s. 3 and the Schedule would

apply to any action instituted before the Commission uls.

86(1)(f) - Whether the impugned order passed by APTEL

permitting application of principles emerging from s. 14, is

against law - Whether the claim for reimbursement of MAT

is in contravention of relevant terms and conditions of the

Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) - Held: A claim coming

before the Commission cannot be entertained or allowed if it

is barred by limitation prescribed for an ordinary suit before

the civil court - However, in appropriate case, a specified

period may be excluded on account of principle underlying

salutary provisions like s. 5 or 14 - Further, such limitation

upon the Commission would be only in respect of its judicial

power uls. 86(1 )(f) and not in respect of its other powers or

functions which may be administrative or regulatory - As

regards order passed by APTEL, in law, the APTEL could

grant exclusion of certain period on the basis of principles ul

s. 14 - On facts, AP TEL adopted a just and lawful approach

in examining the relevant facts and in excluding the entire.

period claimed by respondent which starts from the notice

for arbitration dated 8.9.2003 given by the respondent, till

the application of the respondent u/s. 11 of the Arbitration

Act before the High Court was finally disposed of on

18. 3. 2009 - Challenge to impugned order in respect of views

taken on the issue of limitation in the light of principles of s.

14 fails - As regards the claim for reimbursement, entire

phraseology used in Article 3.8 of the PPA clarifies that

 parties were aware that tax regime keeps changing and

therefore any advance income tax payable for the income

from the project only had to be reimbursed by the Board -

As a successor of the Board the appeliant cannot avoid the

liability to reimburse advance income tax paid by_ the

Crespondent, on the ground that MAT was a new variety of tax

concept introduced subsequently in which minimum tax

became payable on the basis of mere book profits of even

power generating companies - It cannot be said that such,

tax is not on income from the project and thus, not covered

by Article 3.8- Taxable income became amenable to MAT

on account of s. 115JB - Claim for MAT covered by Article

3. 8 and payable as such when requisite conditions stand