Jafar Naim v. State of Orissa
Case brief
What is this about?
No.793 of 2001 05. 17.08.2016 Heard Mr. K.K.…
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
O.J.C. No.793 of 2001
05. 17.08.2016 Heard Mr. K.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
M.S. Sahoo, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
demand raised under Annexure-5 by the State Excise Authorities is based on computation of M.G.
Q on a monthly basis. He further submits that while the petitioner is obliged in law to lift i
n terms of the monthly lifting plan yet, the totality of M.G.Q. lifted ought to be measured on
the basis of annual lifting and not on monthly basis.
Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner draws our attention to the
interim directions of this Court dated 05.02.2001 passed in Misc. Case No.744 of 2001, where
this Court had directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.62,000/- in two equal instalment
s against the demand of Rs.1,24,000/-. He submits that the interim order has been complied wit
h and the petitioner continues to be an excise licensee till date.
It is also brought to our notice by the learned Additional Government
Advocate that the Commissioner of Excise has issued a guideline for re-computation of M.G.Q. o
n monthly basis though for the Excise Year 2014-15 and the same is today the practice in the E
xcise Department to calculate M.G.Q. on annual basis.
In view of the aforesaid submissions, we dispose of the writ applicati
on with the direction to the Superintendent of Excise, Sundargarh (opposite party No.4) to re-
calculate the M.G.Q. dues of the petitioner based on annual lifting both of IMFL as well as Be
er and if there is any shortfall in the lifting on the annual computation, the balance claim s
hall be made on the petitioner and he shall deposit the same within a period of two months fro
m the date of such demand. It is also made clear that the amount of Rs.62,000/- deposited by t
he petitioner pursuant to this Courts direction shall also be duly accounted for by the Superi
ntendent of Excise before making any additional demand and/or refund, if any due.
Free copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel for the
State for necessary communication and compliance.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether M.G.Q. dues of the petitioner should be recalculated based on annual lifting instead of monthly basis.
Whether the amount deposited pursuant to prior interim order should be accounted for before making additional demands or refunds.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Petitioner
- respondent
State Excise Authorities
- respondent
Superintendent of Excise, Sundargarh
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court