AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. S.K. Padhi, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. T. Pattanaik, learned A.S.C. and Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned A.S.G. along with Mr. D. Tripathy, learned C.G.C.
The specific case of the Petitioners is that they were not granted adequate opportunity of hearing by the State Government before raising the demand in question which was the subject matter of challenge before the revisional authority. It is further submitted by Mr. Padhi, learned Sr. Counsel that no such prescribed procedure is there for transportation of Chromites Ores, contrary to the observation of the revisional authority.
As it appears from the impugned order of revisional authority under Annexure-1, it has been held that the Petitioners were granted adequate opportunity of hearing before the State Government.
It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the same is contrary on the face of Annexure-6. Mr. T. Pattanaik, learned A.S.C. for the State-Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 seeks time to obtain instruction on the same and further on the point that, if there is any procedure prescribed by CEC or any other authority for transportation of Chromite Ore produced in excess of the permissible quantity, lying at the mining site.
List this matter on 31st May, 2022 before the available Bench.
I.A. No.6775 of 2022
Mr. S.K. Padhi, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners submits that the impugned demand notice was stayed during pendency of the revision application.
As an interim, it is directed that there shall be stay of the impugned demand notice under Annexure-2 till 31st May, 2022 subject to deposit of Rs.30 crores before the appropriate State authorities, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.
An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application..
..........................................