BACCHUS BOTTLING PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

(2.) In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged an order dtd. 15/12/2023 passed by the Commissioner of Excise, Odisha, Cuttack (opposite party no.2), whereby he has confirmed an order dtd. 24/3/2023 passed by the Collector, Balasore (opposite party no.3) pursuant to a demand notice issued to opposite party no.5, i.e. Radiko Khaitan Limited to deposit excise duty amounting to Rs.35,73,544.00 including 10% fine towards destruction of stocks of 1469 Cases of IMFL produced by opposite party no.5, which were declared unfit for human consumption as per the Rule 99(7)(b) of the Odisha Excise Rules, 2017 (in short 'the Rules').

(3.) Mr. Arun Kumar Patra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that he is the licensee and opposite party no.5 produces IMFL of its brand under the license granted in favour of the petitioner and, accordingly, the petitioner has been asked to pay the excise duty with a fine of 10%. He has argued that the said orders have apparently been passed exercising power under Rule 99(7)(b) of the Rules. He contends that the said Rule 99(7)(b) of the Rules is ultra vires the provisions of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008 (in short 'the Act'). He further contends that Ss. 90 and 94 of the Act confers power upon the State Government to frame rules with respect to the items mentioned therein. He submits that in exercise of powers under Ss. 90 and 94 of the Act, no rule could have been framed for imposition of penalty as the provisions under Ss. 90 and 94 of the Act do not confer any such power on the State to frame rules in this regard.