Allowed

Prahallad Moharana v. State and Ors.

Orissa HC27 Jun 2022WP(C)/18801/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged non-refund of enhanced mining royalty deducted from bills contrary to prior judgments. Court directed filing of representation with bills and judgments within four weeks for disposal via reasoned order within four months, allowing refund or adjustment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file representation with bills and judgments within four weeks; refund to be processed within three weeks of such order or adjusted against projects.

Prahallad Moharana Vs State and Ors. — Income Tax | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.18801 of 2012

¶3

Prahallad Moharana

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. J.K. Mohapatra, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and others

¶8

…. Opp. Parties Mr. J. Katikia, Advocate

¶9

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

Order No.

ORDER 27.06.2022

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State Opposite Parties.

¶14

The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner has paid certain additional royalty, which was enhanced with effect from 01.09.2010, 01.09.2013 and 15.12.2016. It is contended that enhancement of royalty with retrospective effect has already been set aside by judgment and order dated 18.03.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.11830 of 2013 and batch of cases. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the said judgment. It is contended that despite the Petitioner having made several representations for refund of the royalty amount, the same is being deducted from the running bills / bills of the Petitioner and the same has not been refunded to the Petitioner in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

¶15

Taking into consideration the order of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No.11830 of 2013, dated 18.03.2015, this Court has observed as follows:

Page 1 of 3

// 2 //

“xxx xxx xxx

On receipt of such certificates, the same may be produced before the respective Tahasildars and the Tahasildars shall in turn treat the certificates as applications for refund of royalty. However, we make it clear that the Petitioners who have ongoing projects with the State, may, instead of seeking refund of any excess royalty paid, may opt for allowing adjustment of the refundable amount against any ongoing projects that they may be undertaking.”

¶20

Further, it is seen that the issue involved in the writ petition is covered by the decision of this Court in Akuli Charan Das v. State of Orissa and others and batch of cases , 2006 (Supp.-II) OLR 672. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:

¶21

“21. Under the circumstances, the writ applications where agreements have been signed before 31.8.2004 i.e., the date of promulgation of the Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004, are disposed of with the following directions”

¶22

(1) It is hereby declared that the petitioners are justified in their claim for reimbursement on the basis of the revised rate stipulated in 2004 Rules.

¶23

(2) The petitioners may revise their bills to incorporate such enhanced claim on account of revised royalty.

¶24

(3) The State is to effect reimbursement/ payment towards royalty subject to the petitioners furnishing evidence of payment of such royalty.

¶25

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petitions are disposed of.”

¶26

Page 2 of 3

¶27

// 3 //

¶28

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petition will be governed by the above decisions of the Court.

¶29

In that view of the matter, we direct that in the event the Petitioner, with regard to the grievance made in this petition, files a comprehensive representation attaching running account bills along with certified copy of this order annexing therewith the judgment of this Court dated 18.03.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.11830 of 2013 and batch of cases and the decision in Akuli Charan Das (supra) within four weeks hence, the same shall be considered and decided by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of filing of such representation. It is further directed that in case the Petitioner is found to be entitled for refund of any amount, the same shall be refunded to him within three weeks from the date of passing of the order or adjust the refundable amount against any ongoing/completed projects that they may be undertaking if the Petitioner may opt for.

¶30

The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

¶31

Urgent certified of this order be granted as per rules.

¶32

(Dr. S. Muralidhar)

¶33

(R.K.Pattanaik)

¶34

Tudu

¶35

Page 3 of 3

Prahallad Moharana v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prahallad Moharana v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajaya Narayan Samal Vs State of Odisha

Brundaban Jena Vs Union of India

Budhu Khandia Vs State

Kabuli Swain Vs State and Ors.

M/S.Ortel Communicat Vs Assesing Authority

Exe.Engr,B.D.a Vs State