Disposed¶30

Muralidhar Parida v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC4 Feb 2025WP(C)/933/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(C) 933 of 2025, Orissa High Court, decided 04.02.2025; adjustment of proportionate excise licence fee ₹4,66,074/- for closure period 2016-17; exemption from lifting Minimum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ); 'ON' shop licence under rule 45, Odisha Excise Rules, 2017; clause-3(vii) of sale notice on shop location; Superintendent of Excise recommendation dated 03.03.2017 for refund/adjustment; local objections compelled shop shifting; rejection order dated 20.08.2024 quashed; representation restored; three weeks to decide.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 20th August, 2024 set aside and quashed; representation restored to the authority, to decide within three weeks of communication of certified copy of the order, on intimation to the petitioner; writ petition disposed of accordingly. ¶30

Muralidhar Parida Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the authority's order dated 20th August, 2024 rejecting the petitioner's representation (seeking adjustment of proportionate licence fee of ₹4,66,074/- for the closure period 2016-17 and exemption from lifting MGQ), passed in reliance on clause-3(vii) of the sale notice, is sustainable.

¶18

Court's answer

Reliance on clause-3(vii) of the sale notice (that the State is not responsible for providing the place for location of an 'ON' shop) could not justify rejection, because it was not the petitioner's case that he ever sought to make the authority responsible for finding him a suitable alternative site for the shop.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The Superintendent of Excise's recommendation for refund or adjustment was not considered at all by the authority, which instead rested on the clause contending no responsibility.

¶28

Key takeaways

The impugned order is set aside and quashed; the representation is restored to the authority, which has three weeks from communication of the certified copy of this order to take a decision, on intimation to the petitioner.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench of the Orissa High Court (Arindam Sinha, ACJ and M.S. Sahoo, J.), by order dated 04.02.2025 in W.P.(C) No.933 of 2025 (Muralidhar Parida v. State of Odisha and others), dealt with rejection (order dated 20.08.2024) of the petitioner's representation seeking adjustment of proportionate licence fee of ₹4,66,074/- for the 2016-17 closure period and exemption from lifting Minimum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) for his 'ON' shop licensed on basis of rule 45, Odisha Excise Rules, 2017. The authority had relied on clause-3(vii) of the sale notice disclaiming State responsibility for providing the shop location; however, the Superintendent of Excise had on 03.03.2017 recommended refund or adjustment after verifying that the petitioner had no involvement in the local objections which compelled shifting of the shop. The Court held the reliance on clause-3(vii) misconceived since the petitioner never sought to make the authority responsible for arranging an alternative site, and the recommendation went wholly unconsidered. Impugned order quashed; representation restored for fresh decision within three weeks.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.933 of 2025

¶3

Muralidhar Parida

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Represented By Adv. – Mr. S.K. Baral, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and others

¶8

Opp. Parties

¶9

Represented By Adv. Mr. S.B. Panda, AGA

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶12

AND

¶13

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

ORDER

04.02.2025

Order No.

01.

1. Mr. Baral, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client made representation on adjustment of proportionate amount of licence fee at ₹4,66,074/- for closure period in year 2016-17 as well as exemption from lifting Minimum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) for purpose of the duty relevant to the period. Under challenge is order dated 20^th August, 2024 of the authority rejecting the representation. He draws attention to

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

// 2 //

¶21

recommendation made by the Superintendent of Excise to the Excise Commissioner. He submits, shifting was necessary because there was objection from local inhabitants in respect of original location of the ‘ON’ shop. He seeks interference.

¶22

2. Mr. Panda, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and points out reliance on clause-3 (vii) in the sale notice inviting applications for obtaining licence of ‘ON’ shops on basis of rule 45 in Odisha Excise Rules, 2017. The clause is reproduced below.

¶23

“Clause-3(vii): “The State Govt. shall not be responsible for providing the place for location of the shop. It will be the responsibility of the EPH to arrange suitable place and carry on the privilege granted to him and the place so arranged shall be free from the objection from the public.”

¶24

He submits, the writ petition be dismissed.

¶25

3 . Above relied upon clause in the sale notice would bar a licencee from contending that State has responsibility of providing place for location of an ‘ON’ shop. The Superintendent of Excise on 3^rd March, 2017 had recommended that there be refund or adjustment. It is the authority on the ground. The recommendation was made upon

¶26

Page 2 of 3

¶27

// 3 //

¶28

verifying that petitioner had no involvement in the objection raised. Rather it was a situation that compelled shifting of the shop. As such petitioner being thus prevented, the recommendation. It was not considered at all. Instead, reliance on clause contending no responsibility. It is not petitioner’s case that it ever sought to make the authority responsible for finding him suitable alternative site for the shop.

¶29

4 . Impugned order is set aside and quashed. The representation is restored to the authority. It has three weeks from communication of certified copy of this order to take decision, on intimation to petitioner.

¶30

5 . The writ petition is disposed of.

¶31

(Arindam Sinha) Acting Chief Justice

¶32

(M.S. Sahoo) Judge

¶33

Signature Not Verified Jyostna Digitally Signed Signed by: JYOSTNARANI MAJHEE Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 07-Feb-2025 11:29:44

¶34

Page 3 of 3

Muralidhar Parida v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muralidhar Parida v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Chandra Das Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward No I, Baripada

Chaurasiya Enterprises,Jharsuguda Vs Chairman, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs,New Delhi

Mohan Behera Vs State of Odisha

Subrat Priyadarshi Vs State of Odisha

Silicon Institute of Technology, Bbsr Vs Commissioner of Income Tax Aayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad, Telengana

M/S Harishankar Dibyaranjan Amardeep, Bbsr Vs Chief Commissioner of Ct and Gst, Cuttack