SLDC certification of plant availability constitutes authoritative evidence for tariff determination and prudence checks.

The Appellants (BRPL and BYPL), distribution licensees in Delhi, challenged two tariff orders dated 29.09.2015 issued by the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) regarding the True-Up and Aggregate Revenue Requirement for generating companies IPGCL and PPCL

The Appellants contended that IPGCL and PPCL incorrectly declared higher Plant Availability Factors (PAF) despite alleged fuel shortages and gas diversion to other plants

the Appellants sought the refund of excess Income Tax collected by the generators during FY 2007-12, alleging it exceeded the allowable limit based on Return on Equity (RoE)

1. Whether the DERC incorrectly considered the availability (%) of IPGCL’s GTPS and PPCL’s plant for the purposes of truing-up and tariff projection.

2. Whether the DERC failed to ensure the refund of excess Income Tax recovered by the generating companies from the DISCOMs for the period FY 2007-12.

The Tribunal applied Section 32 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which designates the State Load Despatch Centre (SLDC) as the authority responsible for optimum scheduling and dispatch

It applied Regulation 7.12 of the MYT Regulations, 2011, regarding the recovery of capacity charges based on Normative Annual Plant Availability Factor (NAPAF)

Regarding income tax, the Tribunal relied on Regulation 6.27 of the Generation Tariff Regulations, 2007, and Regulation 6.37 of the 2011 Regulations, which limit tax recovery to the tax on the Return on Equity (RoE) component

Precedent was drawn from Banarsi v. Ram Phal (2003) 9 SCC 606, establishing that a party who does not challenge an adverse finding cannot seek relief adverse to the appellant in the same proceedings

Regarding availability, the Tribunal found that IPGCL and PPCL had sufficient contracted gas (1.8 MMSCMD and 2.25 MMSCMD respectively) to meet normative targets

The DERC properly performed a "prudence check" by verifying the generators' data with the SLDC, whose statutory role is to validate grid availability

The Tribunal held that administrative communications regarding gas diversion could not displace the probative value of SLDC certifications

On the issue of Income Tax, the Tribunal noted that tax recovery is limited to RoE

The Tribunal rejected IPGCL's attempt to claim under-recovery because they had not filed a cross-appeal

Regarding PPCL, though the DISCOMs failed to file an application under Regulation 6.28 for tax disputes, the Tribunal found it just to reconcile the accounts to ensure only RoE-based tax was recovered

the Tribunal... remanded the matter to the DERC to compute the tax liability strictly on an RoE basis for the period FY 2006-07 to FY 2011-12... The DERC was directed to ensure that any over-recovery by IPGCL or PPCL is refunded to the Appellants along with carrying cost