Partly allowed

Jitendra Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC13 Aug 2019WP(C)/9470/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging the fixation of MGQ and Demand Notices under the Excise Policy 2018-19, the Court held that the authority's interpretation was improper. It directed the petitioner to file a fresh application considering the last three years' lifting data within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to submit fresh application considering last three years' lifting data within four weeks; authority to dispose in four weeks; coercive action stayed for eight weeks.

Jitendra Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 9470 of 2019

¶2

13.08.2019

¶3

This matter was not there in today’s list. On being mentioned considering the urgency of the matter, this case was listed today by a special notice and the same is taken up for final disposal.

¶4

Heard Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.S. Sahoo, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties.

¶5

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the fixation of MGQ in respect of his liquor shop as well as the Demand Notice dated 23.02.2019 and 10.05.2019 under Annexures-1 and 3 issued by the Superintendent of Excise, Cuttack, whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount mentioned therein on the short lifted quantity of MGQ of CL.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that fixation of MGQ in respect of the liquor shop of the petitioner is in violation of sub-clause (4) of Clause 1.1 of Excise Policy 201819 of the Government of Odisha. Further, he submits that since the authority has fixed the MGQ without taking into account the average lifting in last three years, the impugned Demand Notice is liable to be quashed.

¶7

Sub-clause (4) of Clause 1.1 of Excise Policy 2018-19 of the Government of Odisha reads as under:

¶8

“ 1.1 Salient features of Excise Policy 2018-19 .

¶9

xxx xxx xxx

¶10

The MGQ structure has been rationalized taking into account average lifting in last 3 years.”

¶11

Considering the facts and submissions made, this Court is of the opinion that the interpretation made by the

¶12

authority of fixing quota is not proper. Hence, we direct the petitioner to submit a fresh application before the competent authority in terms of his last three years lifting of IMFL and to pay the difference along with the application, within four weeks hence. In that event, the authority concerned shall consider and dispose of such application accordance with law by passing a reasoned order within four weeks from the date of receipt of such application along with a certified copy of this order.

¶13

No coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to impugned Demand Notice as at Annexures-1 and 3 for a period of eight weeks from today.

¶14

The opposite parties-State is at liberty to revive this petition in case of any difficulty.

¶15

With the aforesaid order, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶16

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶17

……………………..

¶18

K.S. JHAVERI (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶19

………………………

¶20

K.R. MOHAPATRA, (JUDGE)

¶21

bks/jm

Jitendra Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Bajwa Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. Vs M/S.Odisha Mining Corporation Ltd.

Asutosh Mishra Vs Union of India

Subash Chandra Panda Vs Union of India.

Sushila Gupta Vs State of Odisha

Pankajini Dwibedi Vs State of Odisha

P.Subas Chandra Patra Vs State of Odisha