JUDGMENT

1. The demand notice dated 4th July, 2014 issued by the Superintendent of Excise, Bhadrak to the Petitioner for realization of short drawn quantity of MGQ of IMFL and Beer for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13 is under challenge in the present petition.

2. While directing notice to issue in the present petition on 7th August, 2014 this Court stayed the operation of the demand notice.

3. Pursuant to the notice issued, counter affidavit has filed by the Opposite Parties-State. Separately, the Petitioner filed I.A. No.17441 of 2022 enclosing inter alia a statement of lifting of MGQ by the Petitioner from April, 2012 to March, 2013 as Annexure-5.

4. The contention of the Petitioner is that the statement which is enclosed as Annexure-5 to I.A. No.17441 of 2022, would show that by the end of the period April, 2012 to March, 2013 the quantity lifted was much more than the MGQ. On that basis, Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the demand was wholly unjustified as it was raised without referring to the above figures. He also places reliance on the decision in Laxmi Narayan Mohanty v. State of Odisha (2005) 99 CLT 389 which explained the scope of Rule 6-A of the O