Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (9) TMI 222

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hed in Orissa Gazette on 6th July, 2002 could be made and whether any demand for the period prior to the deletion of Rule 6-C of the Rules, 1989 could be validly raised and enforced thereafter. 2. Mr.Asim Amitav Das, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners contended that the aforesaid issue is no longer res integra in view of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.10743 of 2008, by which, this Court has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others, (2000) 2 SCC 536 in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that law is well settled that "repeal of statute or deletion of a provision, unless covered by Sectio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... MGQ) on Bottling Plants is quoted as hereunder; "6.C. Minimum Guaranteed Quantity of Bottling Plants - (I) All the licensees of (I.M.F.L./Beer) Bottling plants shall guarantee for bottling of 50% of the installed capacity of their bottling plants in a year, as the minimum guaranteed quantity. In case of any shortfall in the minimum guaranteed quantity fixed for the plant by the Excise Commissioner, the licensee of the bottling plant shall be liable to make payment of the duty for the shortfall quantity and the amount will be recovered as arrears due from the licensee." D. It is also admitted that with the introduction of Rule 6-C of the Rules, 1989 for the period from 1997-98 till 2000-01, the Commissioner of Excise fixed the Minimum G .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Government issued a Gazette Notification vide SRO No.50/2001 dated 30th January 2001 under Section 20-A of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 forming the Orissa State Beverage Corporation Ltd. and vesting such Corporation the exclusive authority to carry on wholesale trade and distribution of foreign liquor in the State of Orissa with effect from 01.02.2001. The said notification is quoted as hereunder: "S.R.O.No.50/2001- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 20-A of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 (Bihar and Orissa Act 2 of 1915), the State Government do hereby appoint the 1st day of February 2001, as the date on and from which the right to carry on wholesale trade and distribution of foreign liquor in the State shall .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssed the communication to the Excise Commissioner stating therein that since the OSBC became the sole monopoly wholesaler on and from 31.01.2001, therefore, any shortfall in MGQ after the date of establishment of Corporation till the end of the said excise year i.e. 2001-02, should not be a bar for renewal of licenses for the subsequent year i.e. 2002-03. It is most important to note herein that based on the representations made by various bottling manufactures/licensees, the State Government issued notification No.3482 dated 30.05.2002 deleting Rule 6-C from the Rules, 1989 with effect from 30.05.2002 which is quoted hereinbelow: "S.R.O. No.551/2002- Whereas the State Government consider that the following rules shall be brought into for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... entially contended that since Rule 6-C of the Rules, 1989 was only deleted by Notification dated 30th May, 2002, the said Rule and consequent demand was justified even after the OSBC (monopoly wholesaler) was set up by the State Government on 31.01.2001. It is further contended on behalf of the State that the impugned demand notice dated 27th December, 2002 under Annexure-8 was based upon the audit objections and consequently ought to be paid. He fairly submitted that the issue raised in the present writ application is covered by the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.10743 of 2008 dated 5.11.2012. On a query from the Court as to whether the said judgment of this Court has been challenged, he fairly submitt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates