SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Simanchala sahu – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Odisha And Others – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. of 2025 [@ SLP (C) No. 13696 of 2021] with Civil Appeal No. of 2025 [@ SLP (C) No. 13668 of 2021]
Decided on : 28-01-2025
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are against the judgment(s) and order(s) of the High Court of Orissa dated 06.04.2021 and 07.04.2021 in W.P.(C) Nos. 13626 and 13624 of 2020 respectively.
3. The High Court while disposing of the writ petitions filed by the appellant(s) against the order of collector demanding payment of certain dues, directed the appellant(s) to approach the revisional authority under Section 6(3) of the ODISHA EXCISE ACT , 2008 (for short, 'the Act'). The relevant portion of the order passed by the High Court is as under:-
3. Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for Opposite Parties-State points out that against the impugned order revision petition is maintainable before the Excise Commissioner in terms of Section 6(1) of the Orissa Excise Act, 2008 ('OE Act') and against that order to the State Government under Section 6(3) thereof:
4. Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner, on the other hand, submits that since in terms of the proviso to Section 49(b) of the OE Act, the Excise Commissioner himself would have to take a decision on the very issue that is pending before the Collector, viz., the issue of surrender of license subject to terms, no purpose would be served in going before the Excise Commissioner.
5. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, and in view of the submissions aforementioned, the Court directs that subject to the Petitioner paying, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, within four weeks from today the entire license fee as show in Column 12 and 50% of the utilization fee as shown in Column 13 of the annexure to the order dated 20th March, 2020, his revision petition will be considered by the Principal Secretary to Excise Department, Government of Odisha and the revision petition will be dispose of, not later than 7th June, 2021 with a reasoned order, which shall be communicated to the Petitioner, not later than 14th June, 2021.
6. Subject to the Petitioner complying the above directions, no coercive action shall be taken against him till disposal of the revision petition."
4. There were no occasion for the High Court to pass any further order apart from directing the appellant(s) to avail the revisional remedy. However, by the above referred order impugned before us, the High Court directed the appellant(s) to deposit entire license fee and 50% of the utilization fee within a period of four weeks from the date of the order.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) submits that there is no statutory mandate of pre deposit for invoking the revisional jurisdiction and therefore the direction to the appellant(s) to make payment as indicated in paragraph 5 of the order is not justified.
6. Having considered the matter in detail we are of the opinion that the direction of the High Court to mandating the appellant(s) to deposit 50% of the utilization fee as a pre-condition for invoking the revisional jurisdiction is not justified, as there is no statutory condition prescribing pre-deposit for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction.
7. In this view of the matter, we allow the appeals, set aside the orders passed by the High Court in W.P.(C) Nos. 13626 and 13624 of 2020 to the extent as indicated herein above, and direct the appellant(s) to avail the remedy of revision as provided under Section 6(3) of the Act. The Revisional Authority shall take up the matters and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order.
Compliance with prescribed procedure and depositing 50% of the amount demanded before filing a revision petition.
Tax assessments and revisions must rely on new materials; pre-existing information cannot justify revisional authority under Section 14(4) of the Act.
Failure to initiate the adjudication process mandates action as per the revision order under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the availability of a statutory remedy under Section 11(2) of the Excise Act, 1910, after the dismissal of an appeal filed under Section 11(1).
Availability of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to maintainability of writ petition.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.