Page 1 of 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No. 6636 of 2015

Amit Raj and Others

&.

Petitioners

Mr. Arun Kumar Patra, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha and Others

&.

Opposite Parties

Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Advocate

CORAM:

THE CHIEF JUSTICE

JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN

Order No.

ORDER

16.11.2022

05.

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

dated 18^th March, 2015 (Annexure-3) issued by the Odisha State

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

August, 2013 basing upon the audit reports submitted by

Superintendent of Excise, Angul in respect of IMFL OFF Shops

located at Handapa Bazar, Talcher No.II, Talabeda, Gadasantri and

Tikarpada.

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

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

Page 2 of 5

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 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 Annexure-

B/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

Page 3 of 5

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