Advocates:
['M/S PRAFULLA KU RATH', '', 'P K SAHOO', 'R N PARIJA', 'A K BEHERA', 'S K BEHERA', 'A K ROUT', 'A BEHERA', 'S K PATTNAIK', '']

Page 1 of 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C). No.6213 of 2015

Binodini Palo

….

Petitioner

Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha & Others

….

Opposite Parties

Mr. L. Samantaray, AGA

CORAM:

THE CHIEF JUSTICE

JUSTICE M. S. RAMAN

Order No.

ORDER

13.12.2022

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 ‘ON’ Shop,

Beer Parlour located at Congress Bhawan Road, Berhampur.

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

Page 2 of 4

determinations are done by a 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

Page 3 of 4

may not be correct, witho