M/S Jindal Stainless LTD. vs. State Of Odisha

Held

The Court noted that the constitutional validity of Section 2(12-a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise (Orissa Amendment) Act, 1998, had already been decided by this Court. Consequently, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not press this prayer. Instead, the petitioner sought a direction for the consideration of their representations filed under Annexure-12 series, which were pending before the Commissioner of Excise, Odisha. The State's counsel had no objection to this course of action. Therefore, the Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directed the Commissioner of Excise, Odisha, Cuttack (opposite party no.2) to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representations expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of production of an authenticated copy of the order. The Court did not decide the validity of the fees or the constitutional challenge to the amendments.

Facts

The petitioner, a public limited company manufacturing steel products and ferro chrome, challenged the insertion of 'Molasses' into the definition of 'intoxicant' under the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915, and the Odisha Excise Act, 2008. They also challenged the imposition and collection of various fees (license, utilization, import, transport, transit pass, application, user fees) on the use of molasses as a raw material for industrial purposes, citing Annexures-1 and 2 (letters dated 25.02.2010 and 08.03.2011). The petitioner argued these fees were collected without legal authority. The petitioner had obtained a license for possessing molasses for industrial use and sought to purchase it within and outside the state. The authorities insisted on provisional licenses, NOCs, and transport passes, along with the disputed fees, for the years 2009-10 and 2019-20. The petitioner paid these fees under protest.

Key Issues

1. Whether the insertion of 'Molasses' in the definition of 'intoxicant' under Section 2(12-a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise (Orissa Amendment) Act, 1998, is constitutionally valid, and if the collection of fees based on this definition violates Articles 19(g), 265, 301, and 304 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the constitutional validity of Section 2(12-a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise (Orissa Amendment) Act, 1998, has been decided by this Court in M/s. Prabhat Gudakhu Factory vrs. State of Orissa and others, referencing Apex Court judgments. They also argued that the collection of various fees on molasses for industrial use, as per paragraphs 9 and 27 of Annexures-1 and 2, is violative of constitutional provisions. The petitioner had filed representations (Annexure-12 series) seeking exemption from these fees, which were pending. Revenue's arguments: The State argued that since the petitioner had already approached the competent authority with their grievances and the issue of Section 2(12-a) had been decided by the Court, it would be more efficient to direct the authority to dispose of the pending representations.