P. B. Bajanthri, J. – It has been pointed out that in the order dated 18.09.2023, inadvertently it has been mentioned as order no. 4 in place of order no. 24. Similarly, in the order dated 19.09.2023 also, it has been mentioned as order no. 5 in place of order no. 25.

2. Let ‘the order no. 4 dated 18.09.2023’ and ‘order no. 5 dated 19.09.2023’ be read as ‘order no. 24 dated 18.09.2023’ and ‘order no. 25 dated 19.09.2023’.

3. Accordingly, both the aforesaid orders are modified to the aforesaid extent only.

4. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties matter is taken up for final disposal.

5. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): –

“(i) Quashing the order dated 05.05.2022 (Annexure- 9), as contained in letter no. 2319, passed by the respondent no. 3, namely the Deputy Commissioner of Excise (Distilleries & Warehouses), Bihar, Patna on the direction of the respondent no. 2, namely the Excise Commissioner, Bihar, by which, in gross violation of the interim order dated 12.11.2020, passed in CWJC No. 7463 of 2020 (Molson Coors Cobra India Pvt Ltd vs. The State of Bihar) and other analogous cases, directing that no coercive action be precipitated against the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition, referring to Section 28 of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2016, the application of the petitioner seeking permission for removal and shifting of the Plant & Machineries installed at its brewery at Bihta, District-Patna has been refused on the pretext of outstanding dues of Rs. 12.2 Crores, payable to the respondent no. 6, the Bihar State Beverages Corporation Ltd.

(ii) Issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents particularly the respondent No.2. namely, the Excise Commissioner, Bihar to permit the petitioner to remove the plant, machinery and other equipment installed at its brewery at Bihta, District- Patna:

(iii) Pass such other order(s) as your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

6. Learned counsels for both the parties submitted on instruction that pursuant to the interim direction of this Court dated 27.09.2022, there was an interim arrangement insofar as lifting of plant and machineries of the petitioner with reference to his request and subject to furnishing of bank guarantee. To that effect an order has been passed on 23.09.2022 by the Excise Department. Petitioner is stated to have furnished bank guarantee.

7. Now coming to the merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order/communication dated 05.05.2022 of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise insofar as adjustment of outstanding dues payable to the 6th respondent-BSBCL is without authority of law and there is no source of power to the Excise Department to undertake such exercise of adjusting certain dues of the Bihar State Beverage Corporation Limited (BSBCL) in respect of certain liquors’ stock of the petitioner was lying with the BSBCL for which the petitioner was liable to pay dues.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents resisted the aforementioned contention and submitted that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal and further the present case is depending upon subject matter relating to refund of excise duty including VAT issue.

9. Heard learned counsels for the respective parties.

10. We repeatedly asked the State counsel to apprise as to whether Deputy Commissioner of Excise or Excise Department has any source of power to adjust certain dues of BSBCL. On this point he is unable to point out any specific provision of law insofar as power entrusted with the Deputy Commissioner of Excise or any of the officials of the Excise Department to undertake such adjustment. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is an appealable order, but the same cannot be appreciated for the reasons that impugned action is without authority of law. In such an event petitioner cannot be relegated