- (1.) I.A. No. 355 of 2015 This application has been filed seeking permission to amend the prayer clause in the writ petition by incorporating the following prayer: "1 (i) directing the respondents to refund a sum of Rs. 2,50,00,000.00 (Rupees Two Crore Fifty Lacs Only) which has been recovered upon encashment of the Bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner along with interest calculated @ 18% per annum from the date of its encashment to the date of its refund." 2. Since this is the first listing of the writ petition, no prejudice would cause to the respondentState of Jharkhand, if the present application is allowed. 3. Accordingly, I. A. No. 355 of 2015 is allowed. W.P.(C) No. 6141 of 2014 Seeking quashing of order contained in memo dated 20.10.2014 whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,25,52,242.04 and Rs. 1,16,36,382.06 with respect to Dhanbad and Dumka Zone respectively, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) Briefly stated, the petitioner is a private limited company which submitted its bid in response to tender notice dated 22.02.2011 for grant of exclusive privilege for manufacture and supply of spiced country liquor to the retail licensees/Jharkhand State Beverage Corporation Limited for the period 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2014. Due to the reasons not attributable to the petitioner, grant of licence was delayed by more than one year and finally, it was granted for the remaining period from 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2014. The period under the licence was further extended till 30.09.2014 and, 20 days after the extended licence period expired, vide memo dated 20.10.2014, a demand for Rs. 1,25,52,242.04 and Rs. 1,16,36,382.06 with respect to Dhanbad and Dumka Zone respectively was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise (HQ), Ranchi. The petitioner had submitted its bid keeping in mind the existing rate of rectified spirit @ Rs. 26.98 per bulk litre and the final rate was determined by the Board of Revenue, in terms of the lowest rate quoted by the petitionerM/s Bhattacharya Bottling Plant Pvt. Limited. The rate so finalised does not indicate that it included the proposed cost of Hologram and thus, the petitioner rightly believed that in the rate which was finalised more than one year after the bids were submitted, the enhanced price of rectified spirit and other input cost must have been kept in mind. It is further stated that, since the Government of Jharkhand did not take a decision to affix Hologram on country liquor bottles/sachets, the petitioner believed that the proposed cost of Hologram was also not included when the rate was finalised by the Board of Revenue. After the expiry of extended period of grant, without initiating a proceeding or issuing a sowcause notice, a demand notice dated 20.10.2014 was issued requiring the petitioner to refund the cost of Hologram @ Rs. 0.18 paisa which was to be charged for each bottle/sachet of spiced country liquor supplied to the Corporation and to the retail licensees.
(3.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The issued involved in the writ petition is a pure question of law and therefore, no counteraffidavit is required in the matter.;