[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
M/S. Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 16 April, 2026
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.22101 of 2025
M/s. Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. .... Petitioner
Mr. Somyajit Mohanty, Advocate on
behalf of Mr. Jnanesh Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Saswat Das,
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 16.04.2026
01. 1. Aggrieved by Order dated 4th April, 2024 passed by the
Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack in Excise Appeal
Case No.01 of 2023 (Annexure-16), affirming the direction
contained in letter dated 17th July, 2013 issued by the Excise
Commissioner, Odisha, Cuttack (Annexure-9), letter dated 15th
March, 2013 (Annexure-10 series) and demand orders dated 6th
August, 2013 (Annexure-8) and 14th August, 2013 (Annexure-14)
issued by the Superintendent of Excise, Khurda, the petitioner
having a Bottling Unit at Patrapada, Bhubaneswar, has filed this
writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
with the following prayer(s):-
"In the circumstances, it is therefore prayed that your
Lordships would graciously be pleased to issue Rule NISI
calling the Opposite Parties to show cause as and if they
fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, then issue
appropriate order/orders, direction/directions or
writ/writs:
i. To quash audit objection dated 12.03.2013
forwarded to the Petitioner by Superintendent of
Excise, Khurda at Annexure-10 series;
ii. To quash the impugned letter dated 17.07.2013
issued by the Excise Commissioner, Odisha,
Cuttack at Annexure-9;
iii. To quash the impugned letter dated 15.03.2013
issued Superintendent of Excise, Khurda at
Annexure-10 Series;
iv. To quash the impugned demand order dated
6.8.2013 at Annexure-8 and order dated
14.08.2013 at Annexure-14 issued by
Superintendent of Excise, Khurda;
v. Set aside the Order dated 04.04.2024 passed in
Excise Appeal No.01 of 2023 at Annexure-16;
vi. Further direct the Opposite Parties not to impose
transport fee along with import fee on the
consignment imported by the Petitioner; and
vii. Further, direct the Opposite Parties to refund the
Transport Fee paid under protest by the Petitioner
vide letter dated 17.08.2013.
AND
Issue such other writ/writs, order/orders,
direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem it fit
and proper.
And for this act of kindness the Petitioner shall as
in duty bound ever pray."
2. Mr. Somyajit Mohanty, learned Advocate on behalf of
Mr. Jnanesh Mohanty, learned Advocate submitted that the
Assistant Audit Officer, Excise Department has raised objection to
the effect that:
"During scrutiny of RS/ENA pass issue register and
copies of passes for the year 2011-12 at DEO, Khurda, it
was noticed that 168 number of import passes were
issued in favour of two liquor manufacturing units viz. (i)
Utkal Distilleries Ltd. & (ii) Pernad Ricard India
(Oriental Bottling Unit) for imposing 36,19,000 BL of
RS&ENA from outside the State. While issuing import
passes, the District Excise Office realized only import fee
at the rate of Rs.4/- per BL and pass fee at the rate of
Rs.50/- per pass from the concerned unit. But the units
neither did obtain any transport passes for transport of
RS/ENA within the State nor did deposit the required
transport fee at the rate of Rs.3/- per BL. Due to this, an
amount of Rs.1,08,46,000/- as detailed in Annexure could
not be realized.
As the AEP prescribed separate fee both for import and
transport of RS & ENA reasons for not realizing
transport fee in the above cases may please be justified.
How the units could able to transport spirits within the
state without obtaining a transport pass may please be
stated and steps may be taken to realize the above Govt.
revenue under intimating to audit."
2.1. It is submitted that the petitioner is not liable to pay
transport fee for importing RS/ENA from outside the State to its
Unit for preparation/manufacturing of IMFL as it discharged levy
of import fee on such RS/ENA being imported from outside the
State.
2.2. It is vehemently contended that the demand raised in
respect of the transport fee for importing such goods would
tantamount to double levy on the same subject-matter/transaction.
3. Mr. Saswat Das, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the opposite parties-State supported the
affirmation of demand in Appeal by the Member, Board of
Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack.
4. Heard Mr. Somyajit Mohanty, learned Advocate
appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Saswat Das, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the opposite parties-State.
5. Similar issue cropped up before this Court with respect to
the present petitioner for certain other periods. This Court in WP(C)
No.13408 of 2025 vide order dated 19th march, 2026 held as
follows:-
"5. During the periods 2011-12 and 2012-13, the
Bihar and Odisha Excise Act, 1915 was in vogue. In the said
Act, the word 'Transport' was defined in Section 2(21) to
mean "to remove from one place to another within the
State". On perusal of the audit objection it transpired that
the entire demand has been rested on account of non-
payment of transport fee for importing RS/ENA from outside
the State for preparation of IMFL. From the above definition,
it is clear that transport fee is amenable to be levied on the
consignment of goods moving from one place to another
within the State.
5.1. Since the goods in question have been imported by
the petitioner from outside the State, the audit objection so
raised, pursuant to which demand has been raised and
confirmed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha,
Cuttack, in the appeal has no legs to stand.
6. This Court having taken note of clarification
issued by the Excise Commissioner, Odisha, Cuttack in Letter
No.LVIII-143/08-466/Ex. Dated 20th January, 2009
(Annexure-6), in M/s. Jeypore Sugar Company Ltd.,
Rayagada vrs. State of Odisha and others, W.P.(C) No.21832
of 2013, disposed of on 1st August, 2022 observed as follows:
'3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has drawn
attention to the Court to letter dated 20th January, 2009
issued by the Excise Commissioner as instructions to the
Accountant General (CW & RA), Orissa, Bhubaneswar
where, inter alia, it is stated as under:
'In this connection it is to mention here that in the Excise
policy it is stipulated that the levy of import fee to be
collected only for import of RS/ENA from import of RS/ENA
from the outside the State of Orissa to the bottling units in the
State. And also as per definition import fee is applicable only
for import of consignment into the State from outside the
State and transport fee is applicable in case of transport of
consignment from one place to another within the State.
Hence, the demand raised by the Audit towards "Non-levy of
Transport fee on ENA-36.57 lakh may not be charged
simultaneously for import of ENA from outside the State."
4. In view of the clarification issued to the Accountant
General by the Excise Commissioner himself, it is plain that
no transport fee is applicable where the consignment comes
from outside the State. It is applicable only where the
consignment goes from one place to another within the
State.'
6. This Court finds force in the submission of the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner that RS/ENA being imported
by the petitioner from outside the State to its Bottling Unit for the
purpose of preparation of IMFL thereat, the demand raised in
respect of the transport fee is untenable and unwarranted. In view of
the above decision of this Court and the clarification of the Excise
Commissioner, Odisha, Cuttack, the demand raised by the
Superintendent of Excise, Khordha at Bhubaneswar based on Audit
Objection of Audit Officer, Excise Department is liable to be
quashed and this Court does so.
7. In the result, the impugned order dated 4th April, 2024
passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack in
Excise Appeal Case No.01 of 2023 confirming the letter dated 17th
July, 2013 issued by the Excise Commissioner, Odisha, Cuttack
(Annexure-9), letter dated 15th March, 2013 (Annexure-10 series)
and demand orders dated 6th August, 2013 (Annexure-8) and 14th
August, 2013 (Annexure-14) issued by the Superintendent of
Excise, Khurda stands quashed and set aside.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referring
the letter dated 17th August, 2013 submits that the petitioner has
deposited the transport fees as demanded under protest and the
same may be directed to be refunded in its favour. In view of the
conclusion as arrived at, this Court, hence, directs the authority
concerned to refund the amount stated to have been deposited in
respect of transport fee within a period of four weeks from today.
9. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall also be disposed
of.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
MRS/Laxmikant
Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA
Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 17-Apr-2026 14:38:34
