Advocates:
['M/S ARUN KU PATRA', '', 'B SHADANGI', 'M/S S K JENA', '', 'R C BEHERA', 'A R MOHANTY', 'C R DASH']

Page 1 of 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No. 5367 of 2016

Debendra Kumar Sahoo

….

Petitioner

Mr. Arun Kumar Patra, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha and others

….

Opposite Parties

Mr. Debakanta Mohanty

Additional Government Advocate for State

Mr. S.K. Jena, Advocate

CORAM:

THE CHIEF JUSTICE

JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN

ORDER

06.12.2022

Order No.

04.

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

dated 9^th March, 2015 (Annexure-4) issued by the Odisha State

Beverage Corporation Ltd. for the period from 29^th December, 2008

to 27^th January, 2009 basing upon the audit report in respect of

Country Spirit Shops located at Chandrabhaga and Nayahat.

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

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 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

Page 3 of 5

“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