Page 1 of 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.8475 of 2015

Purna Chandra Behera

….

Petitioner

Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha & Others

….

Opposite Parties

Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, AGA

Mr. S.K. Jena, Advocate for O.P. No.2

CORAM:

THE CHIEF JUSTICE

JUSTICE M. S. RAMAN

Order No.

ORDER

17.01.2023

04.

1. The challenge in the present petition is to the demand notice

dated 18^th March, 2015 (Annexure-1) issued by the Odisha State

Beverage Corporation Ltd. for the period from 1^st April, 2010 to 31^st

March, 2013 basing upon the audit report in respect of IMFL ‘OFF’

Shop located at Kanheibandh, Mayurbhanj.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the issue involved in

this case is covered by the ratio decided by this Court on 24th

August, 2018 in W.P.(C) No. 5679 of 2015 and a batch of writ

petitions. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows:

“It appears from the submissions made at the bar and

from the records that the method adopted by the

authorities is firstly to determine the price at which

various excisable products will be procured into the State

of Odisha from the manufacturers/suppliers. Thereafter,

they determine the rate at which such goods are to be

sold to retailers (after including profit of margin therein

for “OSBCL”) and thirdly they also indicate at what

maximum retail price (MRP) that a retailer can sale the

product. These three determinations are done by a

Page 2 of 4

committee formed by the State known as the Price

Fixation Committee (PFC). It is the case of the “OSBCL”

that it has strictly complied with the guidelines issued by

“PFC” from time to time for the purpose of pricing both

at the time of procurement, sale to the retailers as well as

fixing the maximum price at which the retailers can sale

the products to the consumer.

In the present case, after hearing the learned counsel

for the respective parties, we W.P.(C) No. 7483 of 2015 2

are of the considered view that there appears to be some

confusion at the end of the “OSBCL” insofar as the

manner for determining the “maximum retail price”.

From time to time the State policy has expanded the

definition of maximum retail price “to include retailers

margin and all taxes & duties”. It is also a matter of fact

that after the Accountant General Audit pointed out

certain errors in the computation being made by the

“OSBCL”, it is now following the revised method in

terms of Annexure-B/1 extracted hereinabove. Now the

only issue that remains for determination relates to the

demands for a period which is prior to the period covered

under the notification annexed as AnnexureB/1. The

earlier MRP was fixed as per the policy relating to

calculation of MRP prevailing during 2009- 2013 as is

revealed from Annexure-A/1. The new calculation policy

under Annexure-B/1 which was implemented with effect

from 2015- 16, which does not have any retrospective

operation. Therefore, the impugned demands for a prior

period having been made relying on such new calculation

policy, are clearly arbitrary and unreasonable thus

inviting the mischief of Article-14 of the Constitution of

India. Further, it is not disputed that “OSBCL” has not

suffered any loss. Moreover, we are of the considered

view that there has been no undue enrichment by the

petitioner inasmuch as there is no allegation of even a

single retailer selling above the maximum retail price i.e.

MRP. It may further be noted that the term maximum

retail price as defined and as accepted is not necessarily

the rate at which the products are always sold. It is verily

possible that products are sold below the MRP and any

assumption that the entire stock purchased by the

retailers was sold at the maximum retail price would be

an assumption which in our considered view may not be

Page 3 of 4

correct, without any evidence thereof being brought on

record. The afores