He High Court
Case Details
IN THE H HE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUT CUTTACK O.J.C. No.6567 of 1994 M/s. National onal Aluminum Co. Ltd. …. Petitioner versus- State of Odisha disha and others ..... Opposite Parties Advocates appe s appeared in this case: ioner For petitioner Senior Advocate : Mr. Sanjit Mohanty, Senio ocate Mr. S.C. Sahoo, Advocate Mr. A.R. Mishra, Advocat vocate ocate Mr. I. Acharya, Advocate For opposite site parties : Mr. D. Mohanty, AGA (for O.P. no.1) Mr. Sunil Mishra, Standin (for Revenue) tanding Counsel CORAM: THE HON'BL N'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINH SINHA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE A AND THE HON HOO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Dates of hear ------------------------------------------------------------------ f hearing: 17th September, 2024, 3rd December, 2024 and 10th M March, 2025 ------------------------------- judgment: 10th March, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------- Date of judgm ---------------------- ARINDAM SI AM SINHA, ACJ. 1. The writ e writ petition came before this Bench on ch on 5th September, 2024. Text of o xt of order made that day is reproduced belo d below. O.J.C. no.6567 of 1994 Page 1 of 19 “1. Mr. r. Mohanty, learned senior advocate a ate appears on behalf of lf of petitioner and submits, under challen allenge is order dated 16 16th June, 1994 made by the Additional the Commiss missioner, Sales Tax, on restoration o n of the writ petition b on by the Supreme Court upon order der dated 31st October, ber, 2023. 2. Mr. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate, Standin nding Counsel appears o ars on behalf of revenue. 3. Recor ecords in the case are old and fragile. M e. Mr. Mohanty submits, its, he will hand up copy of the writ p rit petition and impugned gned therein order disclosed as annexure -1. 4. List o ist on 17th September, 2024.” (emphasis supplied) (emp 2. Mr. Moh r. Mohanty, learned senior advocate appear appears on behalf of petitioner and r and Mr. D. Mohanty, learned advoca advocate, Additional Government A ent Advocate for State. Mr. Mishra, lea a, learned advocate, Standing Coun Counsel appears on behalf of revenue. enue. Upon the writ petition havin having had been moved on 17th Septem eptember, 2024, we recorded our u our understanding in order made that day at day. Paragraphs 3 and 4 from said m said order are reproduced below. “3. W We understand charge no.3 to be, pet , petitioner had utilized ed the goods purchased under Form-C fo C for purposes other than t generation of icity, electricity, namely, transform formation and transmission. In dealin aling with the charge th e the authority, in impugned order, relied elied on rule 13 O.J.C. no.6567 of 1994 Page 2 of 19 in Centra entral Sales Tax (Registration and Turno urnover) Rules, 1957. The The goods dealt with under the charge a rge are several, of which ich some have been accepted. The autho uthority did not accept mo pt most of the goods as covered by rule 13 le 13 and found petitioner oner to be guilty of the charge, in respe espect of them. The auth authority is deemed to have found on fac n facts. We are on judic udicial review of such findings. Part Parties are to demonstr nstrate that findings in respect of of goods not accepted pted were shown in impugned order to r to have been used for for either transformation or transm ansmission of electricity ricity. Opinion of or on necessity of y of user for generatio ration of electricity will not do. 4. Moving on to charge no.5 it is seen that M that an analysis of categ ategories of goods mentioned in the the certificate including ding subsequent addition of cement in in relation to annexure xure-5 (mentioned in the charge), is nec necessary. We see that hat some of the goods coming under c er charge no.5 have been been referred as dealt with under charge arge no.3. Here we make ake clear that if an item of goods is cov covered under charge no ge no.3, it cannot be subject matter of cha charge no.5 as ‘not cove covered’. Our this observation is to direct rect attention of the parti parties for adjudication of the findings ings on facts, whether c her contains perversity or irrationality. Th This will not preclude ude the parties or either of them to su to subsequently argue on e on scope of the certificate, on covering ering the items regarding rding generation and distribution of electr lectricity.” O.J.C. no.6567 of 1994 (emphasis supplied) (emp Page 3 of 19 3. Next he
Decision
hearing of the writ petition was on 3rd De December, 2024. Paragraphs 1 to hs 1 to 5 in order made that day are reproduc produced below. “1. Mr. r. Mohanty, learned senior advocate r te resumes his argument ment in continuation of record in order der dated 17th Septembe mber, 2024. He submits, his client lient obtained registrati tration under Central Sales Tax Act, Act, 1956 by obtaining ning certificate of registration in respect o ect of two of its units. The . There were two registration certificates ates, one valid from 16t 16th September, 1981 and the other her from 16th August, 1 st, 1982. Under the certificates, partic articularly the latter, his , his client was entitled to pay concessio essional rate of tax for in or inter-state purchase of goods or clas class of goods specified fied for the purpose of sub-sections (1) (1) and (3) in section 8, n 8, on rates specified, subject to provisi ovisions of sub- section (4 n (4). The concessional rate of tax paya ayable, subject matter of r of challenge in the writ petition, is unde nder clause (d) in registr gistration certificate valid from 16th Au August, 1982. The clau clause, including handwritten endor dorsement, is reproduce duced below. “(d) (d) for use in the generation or distribu tribution of electricity or any other form of power. … elect r. … … list attached” attac 2. He ha e hands up two charts in respect of c of charge 5 in relation t ion to item mentioned in charge 3 and nd another, in respect of ct of charge 3. He demonstrates from th m the chart on O.J.C. no.6567 of 1994 Page 4 of 19 charge 5 ge 5 that all items mentioned in the charge arge also found mention u ion under charge no.3, except cement. R t. Referring to the list at st attached, as mentioned in the second ce nd certificate of registrati tration, he demonstrates, the list includes des cement. He submits, its, cement was used for making founda undation of the generatin rating plant. 3. Movi oving on to the other chart he submit bmits, it bears reference ence to articles/items of equipment purch urchased by his client for t for purpose of installation of the plant for t for generation of electr lectricity. Generation includes transm nsmission and distributio bution. He relies on judgment of coordin ordinate Bench in Natio ational Aluminium Co. Ltd v. State tate of Orissa, reported rted in (1994) 93 STC 529 (Ori), pa ), paragraph-8 containin ining view expressed that transform formation and transmiss mission would obviously come within th in the ambit of distributio ibution of electricity. Referring to sa said second certificate icate of registration he points out, it al it also includes transmiss mission and distribution of electricity as y as mentioned therein. in. The judgment was not interfered w ed with by the Supreme eme Court on revenue having filed for sp or special leave to appea ppeal. There can be no contention rai raised, to be entertaine tained, regarding generation, distrib stribution and transmiss ient. mission of electricity as done by his client. 4. He He submits, in the chart (dealing with with charge 5) column n 4 gives extract of reasoning r g relevant to article/eq le/equipment mentioned as several items tems in it. The reasons g ns given stand in face of the provision inv n invoked. They O.J.C. no.6567 of 1994 Page 5 of 19 are claus clause (b) under sub-section (3) in sec section 8 and clauses ( es (b) and (d) under section 10. App Application of penalty u lty under section 10A, made by the o e officer, was misconce nceived. It will be sufficient for us to s to reproduce below cla on 8. clause (b) in sub-section (3) of section 8 xxx xxx xxx 5. Mr. r. Mishra, learned advocate, Standin nding Counsel appears ars on behalf of revenue. He will be l be heard on adjourned rned date. Revenue is put on notice ice that under charge 5, ge 5, regarding goods purchased as are are outside the registratio tration certificate, the only item of goods oods is cement. Petitioner ioner has given explanation and argumen ument has been made on on its behalf. Revenue is to answer. Unde nder charge 3, where pe e penalty has been imposed by applying ing clauses (b) and (d) in (d) in section 10, revenue is to demonstra nstrate that the officer fo er found the items or goods mentioned in d in the charge as were n ere not used by petitioner. It is only after t fter that we will move on on to see whether reasonable excuse fo e for not using them was was furnished.” (emphasis supplied) (emp Today, the wri he writ petition has been called for Mr. Mish r. Mishra to make his submissions. 4. Mr. Mis r. Mishra, draws attention to the registra egistration certificate valid from 16 m 16th September, 1981, added to on sever several dates, lastly with effect from ct from 2nd May, 1994. He begins with addr h addressing on steel. O.J.C. no.6567 of 1994 Page 6 of 19 He submits, lis list attached to the certificate in columns lumns (b) (c) and (d) give particular ticulars of construction plant to include, in ude, inter alia, steel. Moving on to to addition made on 4th December, 1982 , 1982 he points out, cement stood stood added. According to him, the revis revisional authority correctly dealt dealt with steel in drawing analogy of cons f consideration made in respect of ce cement. 5. The revi e revision was dealt with on order dated 16 ted 16th June, 1994 in Revision Case Case no.CU-II-1075 and 1076/89 dealing w aling with period 24th February, 1982 , 1982 to 30th June, 1986. Mr. Mishra po hra points out to the consideration ation under charge no.5 in respect of cemen cement, in the order. Relied upon pa pon passage is reproduced below. “Provisi ovisions of law as embodies U/s.8(3)(b) of b) of the C.S.T./ Act read w ead with rule 13 of the C.S.T.(R. & T.) Rul ules, entitle a regd. dea ealer to purchase goods intended for us r use by him as raw mate materials, processing materials, machin chinery, plant, equipmen ment, tools, stores, spare parts, accessor ssories, fuel or lubricants cants in the generation or distribution of n of electricity (so far th r this case is concerned). The item ceme ement does not answer to er to the requirement of these provisions ons in as much as it is ne is neither a raw material nor processing m ng material nor machiner inery, plant, equipment, tools, stores, s es, spare parts, accessori ssories, fuel or lubricants, essential for t for the purpose of genera neration or distribution of electricity.” (emphasis supplied) (emp Page 7 of 19 O.J.C. no.6567 of 1994 He moves on t es on to subsequent part of the order dealing ealing with steel. He submits, the an the analogy on cement was correctly drawn drawn upon, to make the finding in r ng in respect of steel. 6. He relies e relies on view taken by a Division Bench ench of this Court in Ipitata Spong ponge Iron Ltd. v. State of Orissa, reporte reported in (1991) 71 CLT 132 an and available at 1990 SCC OnL OnLine Ori 23, paragraph 10 h 10 (SCC OnLine print). The paragraph agraph is reproduced below. “10. Ther There is substance in the submissions of th of the counsel for the op e opposite parties. Rule 13 clearly exclude cluded cement, steel, etc. etc., from the category of goods intended ded for use for manufact facture or processing of goods. The he petitioner, therefore, fore, committed infraction of section 10 10(d) of the Central S ral Sales Tax Act thereby attracting se section 10A providing ding for imposition of penalty. But, in , in our view, there exi exists an extenuating factor which sho should go to lessen the n the burden of the petitioner. The cond onduct of the Revenue nue has not been free from blame. Goo Goods, which are not u ot used in the manufacture or processing sing of goods, were spe specified in the certificate of registra istration. The heading a ing at the top of the list of goods was inap inappropriate. Therefore efore, having given our anxious considera deration to the matter, w r, we hold that the amount of penalty shall shall equal the amount. nt. Which the petitioner would have paid paid otherwise on the g he goods had it not purchased the sa e same at a O.J.C. no.6567 of 1994 Page 8 of 19 concessio essional rate 9tilizing “C” forms, minus th us the amount already p dy paid by it as tax thereon. The value of e of the goods for the pu e purpose of imposition of tax shall be d be determined by the Sal e Sales Tax Officer, Keonjhar Circle, after fter deducting the value value of refractories and the value o e of various equipmen ents, weighing machines, weigh bri bridge, etc., which, in h, in an earlier paragraph we have ve held, are tial essential for and integrally connected ed with the manufact facture of goods.” (emphasis supplied) (emp Mr. Mishra su hra submits, taking clue from the judgment gment the revisional authority reduc of tax. reduced rate of penalty to be the rate of tax. 7. Mr. Mis r. Mishra relies on judgment of the Supreme upreme Court in J.K. Cotton Spinn Spinning and Weaving Mills v. Sales Sales Tax Officer, reported in in AIR 1965 Supreme Court 1310 1310, paragraph 11 reproduced bel ed below. “11. Buil Building materials including lime and c nd cement not required red in the manufacture of tiles for sal sale cannot, however, ver, be regarded within the meaning of R of Rule 13, as raw mate materials in the manufacture or processing ssing of goods or even ven as "plant". It is true that buildings ngs must be construct ructed for housing the factory in which ma h machinery is installed. lled. Whether a building is a "plant" w t" within the meaning ing of Rule 13, is a difficult question on n on which no opinion ion need be expressed. But to qu qualify for O.J.C. no.6567 of 1994 Page 9 of 19 specificat fication under s. 8(3)(b) goods must be in e intended for use of of the nature mentioned in Rule 13 13, in the manufact facture of goods. Building materials use s used as raw materials rials for construction of "plant" cannot not be said to be used sed as plant in the manufacture of go of goods. The Legislatu lature has contemplated that the goods ods to qualify under s. r s. 8(3)(b) must be intended for use use as raw materials rials or as plant, or as equipment in the ma e manufacture or proce rocessing of goods, and it cannot be be said that building ing materials fall within this description. ion. The High Court w t was, therefore, right in rejecting the cla e claim of the Company pany in that behalf.” (emphasis supplied) (emp So far as charg arge no.3 is concerned, Mr. Mishra relies relies on findings of the revisional sional authority. He submits, goods includ including road roller and cranes, pa es, pavement breaker and others were righ e rightly held by the authority as no as not necessary for purpose of generation ration or distribution of electricity. T icity. They are not integrally connected for th d for the purpose. He submits furthe further on reliance of order dated 31st Octo October, 2023 that said Court ma urt made it clear, all contentions as are le are left open to be decided by thi by this Court. He relies on the set aside side order dated 19th December, 20 er, 2018 of coordinate Bench. Two of t of the concluding paragraphs are are reproduced below. O.J.C. no.6567 of 1994 Page 10 of 19 “We ha e have considered the submissions and t nd the point of contradic adiction or difference or the point of view view which has been take taken by the petitioner-assessee and the D he Department. While co e considering the matter, one thing w g we have to consider der is that whether the machineries whic which are used are mand andatory or optional for manufacturing ring process so that the the same can be taken into considera ideration while granting ting the sales tax benefit. It is to be seen w een whether the same is e is essential to be done for the purpose o se of speedy or more pro production of the electricity or the same ame could have been avo avoided in production or in the ma manufacturing ss. process. In that v hat view of the matter, while considering ring the matter the autho uthority who is deciding the matter has has to consider the same same for the purpose of taxing stat statute. While consideri dering the production of electricity, to ach achieve higher productio uction, an expert of electricity might think hink that this is mandator atory or it is necessary for higher prod production. But while inte interpreting the provisions of the use an e and expenses, which are h are shown for taxation purpose, mandato datory or not is to be judg judged by the expert and in our consider idered opinion, while dea dealing with the same, the Revenue aut authority after the rema remand has considered e the same taking t into considera deration the intention of the Legislature ature and after taking in g into consideration all factors necessa cessary for the purpose o ose of imposing penalty has to come to the the reasonable conclusio lusion. O.J.C. no.6567 of 1994 Page 11 of 19 He submits, pe its, petitioner has successfully caused reduc reduction in the rate of penalty on lty on goods not necessary for use in the in the generation or distribution of of electricity or any other form of power power, for which the registration ce ion certificate was issued, on mis-declara declaration made by Form-C. There There be no interference. The writ petition tition be dismissed. 8. Mr. Moh r. Mohanty in reply submits, in J.K.Cotton otton Spinning and Weaving Mill g Mills (supra) the Supreme Court said that id that a bare survey of the diverse u verse uses, to which the goods may be intend intended to be put in the manufactu ufacture or processing of goods, clearly s early shows that the restricted inter erpretation placed by the High Court is ourt is not warranted. Relied upon pa pon passage from paragraph 8 is reproduced duced below. “8… “8………… A bare survey of the diverse us se uses to which the goods oods may be intended to be put in the man manufacture or processin ssing of goods, clearly shows that the t the restricted interpreta pretation placed by the High Cou Court is not warranted anted………….” He also draws draws attention to paragraph 10, wherein th the Court said as in the relied up lied upon passage, reproduced below. “10. …… …………..The expression “in the manufac ufacture” takes in within ithin its compass, all processes which a ch are directly related t ed to the actual production. Goods in s intended as O.J.C. no.6567 of 1994 Page 12 of 19 equipmen ment for use in the manufacture of goods ods for sale are expressly ssly made admissible for specification…… ………….” 9. We hav e have recorded submissions on, inter ali ter alia, the facts as would appear ppear from above. We will first draw in aw instruction from J. K.Cotton S tton Spinning and Weaving Mills (supra). upra). It was a case where there w here was deletion made to the registrati gistration certificate. Applicant, a p t, a public limited company engaged in m in manufacture and sale of cotton otton textiles, tiles and other commodities dities had moved the High Court ag urt against the deletion. Subject matter of tter of the challenge was the deletio deletions in respect of manufacture of tiles of tiles. Revenue has relied upon pa on paragraph 11 in the judgment. We have e have laid emphasis on a sentence i tence in the paragraph, which is again reprod reproduced below. “… … … … … Building materials used as raw m w materials for construc struction of "plant" cannot be said to be us be used as plant in the m he manufacture of goods. … … …” (emphasis supplied) (emp This finding m ing must be seen in context of facts in that c n that case because in the paragraph graph itself the Supreme Court said, whethe whether a building is ‘plant’ within ithin the meaning of rule 13 is a difficu ifficult question, on which no opin o opinion need be expressed. The facts were ts were, the deletions made were in in respect of items said as not necessary essary for use in the manufacture o ture of tiles. It follows, we must acce accept reliance of O.J.C. no.6567 of 1994 Page 13 of 19 petitioner on th r on the declarations of law made in paragra aragraphs 8 and 10 in the judgment ment, as have been reproduced above, for our for our instruction. 10. In Ipita Ipitata Sponge Iron Ltd. (supra) the registration certificate issu te issued to appellant therein did not includ include ‘refractory’. Revenue had had moved against appellant therein. I . In that context coordinate Ben te Bench had considered mitigation follow following finding on conduct of rev of revenue as had not been free from blam m blame. The view does not come come to aid of revenue. 11. Challeng hallenge in the writ petition involves provisi provisions in sections 8 and 10 of C of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Clause lause (b) under sub- section (3) of s 3) of section 8 is reproduced below. “8. Rat Rates of tax on sales in the course of e of inter-State trade or c or commerce.-… … … ………..(3)The goods referred to to in sub- section(1) on(1)- (b) are are goods of the class or classes specif pecified in the certificate ficate of registration of the register istered dealer purchasin hasing the goods as being intended for re r re-sale by him or subjec bject to any rule made by the Central Gov Government in this beha behalf, for use by him in the manu anufacture or processin ssing of goods for sale or in the telecomm ommunications O.J.C. no.6567 of 1994 Page 14 of 19 network o ork or in mining or in the generation or d or distribution of electric ectricity or any other form of power; ” (emphas phasis supplied) Also reproduce roduced below are clauses (b) and (d) under under section 10. “10. Pen Penalties – … …. …. … (b) being a registered deal dealer, falsely represents sents when purchasing any class of goods oods that goods of such cl ch class are covered by his certificate of re of registration; or … … … … … (d) after purchasing any goods fo for any of the purposes s ses specified in clause (b) or clause (c) or c) or clause (d) of sub-sec section (3) or sub-section (6) of Secti Section 8 fails, without re ut reasonable excuse, to make use of the f the goods for any such p uch purpose; or” (empha emphasis supplied) 12. We see e see from reasoning of the revisional autho l authority in respect of cement, it is it is view taken that item ‘cement’ does no oes not answer to the requirement of of the provisions under section 8(3)(b) (3)(b) read with rule 13 of the Cen e Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turn d Turn Over) Rules, 1957. Rule 13 ule 13 is reproduced below. “The go e goods referred to in clause (b) of sub-se section (3) of section 8, w 8, which a registered dealer may purcha rchase, shall be goods inten intended for use by him as raw materials, ials, processing O.J.C. no.6567 of 1994 Page 15 of 19 materials, als, machinery, plant, equipment, tools, st ls, stores, spare parts, acce accessories, fuel or lubricants, in the man manufacture or processing sing of goods for 4 sale, or 4 [in the telecommu mmunications network or] in mining, ng, or in the generation tion or distribution of electricity or any ot y other form of power.” Cement, petitio petitioner says, was used for purpose of co constructing the plant, in which which there has been generation of electri electricity. Inter alia, ‘plant’ was se as separated from ‘machinery’ as an item item in the rule by GSR no.1059 o.1059 dated 29th October, 1958. ‘Plan Plant’ became an independent ite ent item. It is to be seen whether, fo er, for purpose of generation of on of electricity there is necessity of a pl f a plant and if so, construction o tion of it by use of, inter alia, cemen cement. Petitioner’s contention is on is, the plant was constructed after th fter the registration certificate was te was obtained, on goods purchased by d by declaration on Form-C. There There does not appear to be any dispute tha that petitioner did construct a pl t a plant, from where it commenced its its generation of electricity. Th ty. That being the position, we find the v the view taken, of cement not ans ot answering to the requirement of the prov e provisions as being neither a raw m raw material nor processing material nor ma nor machinery, plant, equipment, too nt, tools, stores, spare parts, accessories, fu es, fuel or lubricants O.J.C. no.6567 of 1994 Page 16 of 19 essential for p for purpose of generation or distribution bution of electricity, unacceptable. table. There is also no indication from mate materials on record that after cons r construction of the plant, cement had been been purchased by declaration in on in Form-C. Cement was an item subsequ ubsequently added in the registration stration certificate. It is absurd to expect cement will be directly used fo used for purpose of generation or distribution ibution of electricity. 13. Moving oving on to reasoning by the revisional auth l authority in respect of steel, we we find the authority implied its disa s disagreement with issuance of of the registration certification including luding item steel in saying, it was t was issued rightly or wrongly from Bhuban hubaneswar-I and II circles to go o o go on to say, fact remains steel is not an an item essential based on reas n reasoning earlier given for cement. We t. We are unable to accept the view e view for the same reasons we have given o iven on cement. 14. Regardin egarding charge no.3 on, inter alia, items o tems of road rollers, cranes and pav nd pavement breakers, we have not been ab een able to find from materials on re s on record, fact that those items were used used for any purpose other than fo an for generation or distribution of e of electricity. The revisional auth al authority here too relied on rule 13. Petiti . Petitioner has given an explanation nation on facts, for use of those items in co compacting coal, for lifting hea g heavy items required for purpose of g e of generation and distribution of ion of electricity. The pavement breaker aker petitioner says, O.J.C. no.6567 of 1994 Page 17 of 19 was used as ha as handling equipment. Where there is a fin is a finding of guilt to impose penalty penalty, the authority is obliged to show th how that if the items purchased on d on declaration by ‘C-Form’, are present i esent in the premises where petition etitioner is generating electricity for distrib distribution, there is also some coll e collateral purpose of business for which hich the items were or are being u eing used. There is clear absence of find finding on fact but interpretation ation of the provision and view taken for en for imposition of penalty. Here Here we reproduce paragraph 12 from from J. K.Cotton Spinning and g and Weaving Mills (supra). “12. Th The expression "electricals" is somew mewhat vague. But in a f a factory manufacturing cotton and oth other textiles, certain el electrical equipment in the present sent stage of developme pment would be commercially neces ecessary. For instance, w ce, without electric lighting it would be be very difficult to carry ry on the business. Again electrical h al humidifiers, exhaust fan st fans and similar electrical equipment w nt would in the modern co n conditions of technological developmen pment normally be regarde arded as equipment necessary to effectual ctually carry on the manufa nufacturing process. We are not prepare epared to agree with the the High Court that in order that hat "electrical equipment ent" should fall within the terms of R of Rule 13, it must be an e an ingredient of the finished goods to b to be prepared, or "it mus must be a commodity which is used in t in the creation of goods" ods". If, having regard to normal al conditions O.J.C. no.6567 of 1994 Page 18 of 19 prevalent i ent in the industry, production of the fini finished goods would be d be difficult without the use of electrical ical equipment, the equipm uipment would be regarded as intended ded for use in the manuf anufacture of goods for sale and such a h a test, in our judgment, ent, is satisfied by the expression "electri lectricals". This would of of course not include electrical equ equipment not directly co y connected with the process of manufac ufacture. Office equipment ent such as fans, coolers, air-conditi ditioning units, would not not be admissible to special rates under s. er s. 8(1). 15. We are e are convinced that impugned revision or ion order dated 16th (emphasis supplied) (emp June, 1994 can 94 cannot be sustained. It is set aside and qua nd quashed. 16. The writ e writ petition is allowed and disposed of. Jyostna/Dutta Prasant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JYOSTNARANI MAJHEE Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 11-Mar-2025 19:10:10 O.J.C. no.6567 of 1994 ( Arindam Acting Ch indam Sinha ) g Chief Justice .S. Sahoo ) ( M.S. S Judge Jud Page 19 of 19