TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 1500
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 7th April 2016, by the Joint Director of Mines Joda, Keonjhar, Odisha, which was valid till 6th April, 2021. It was a licence for procurement of Iron ore and coal for processing, end-use and sale of residuals outside the State of Odisha. Unit-II manufactures iron ore pellet and beneficiation of iron ore, for which a licence was issued on 7th April 2016, valid till 6th April, 2021. This licence was for procuring iron ore and manganese for processing, end-use and sale of residuals outside the State. Both the licences stand renewed for further period and the copies of renewed licences have been enclosed with the petition. Incidentally, the renewal was granted on 20th February 2021. 3. There are three monthly return forms, such as Form-A and Form-E under the Orissa Minerals (Prevention of Theft, Smuggling and Illegal Mining and Regulation of Possession, Storage, Trading and Transportation) Rules 2007 (in short '2007 Rules') and Form-L under MCDR Rule, 2017 ('2017 Rules') that were required to be submitted by Petitioner No.1. Noticing certain discrepancies in the figure in those returns, a show-cause notice (SCN) was issued to Petitioner No.1 by the Joint Director of Mines, Joda, K....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spite the above revocation of suspension of the licences, there was a sudden stoppage in dispatch of iron ore, coal and manganese ores which led Petitioner No.1 to send an email to Opposite Party No.3 seeking the reasons therefor. In a reply e-mail dated 15th February, 2021 Opposite Party No.3 referring to the above letter of Opposite Party No.2 dated 12th February 2021. Petitioner No.1 then made a representation to the Government of Odisha on 22nd February, 2021 protesting against the stoppage of issuance of transit permits. When no response was received, the present petition was filed. 8. On 4th March 2021, this Court passed the following order: "1. Heard Mr. Pinaki Misra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. A.R. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioners. 2. Petitioner No.1 Company, of which Petitioner No.2 is the Director, is aggrieved primarily by instructions dated 12th February 2021, issued by the Director of Mines, Odisha to the Joint Director of Mines, as a result of which, all transit passes to Petitioner No.1 have been stopped till inquires against Petitioner No.1 and its group of entities are concluded. 3. Mr. Pinaki Misra, learned Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the licensee". The affidavit then proceeds to refer to a detailed inquiry launched by the State into the mismatches as observed and admitted by the licensee and to the fact that since the inquiry was in progress, the permission for transactions relating to the Petitioner had been put on hold. It states that further decision on the matter will be taken as per law on completion of the detailed investigation. 11. Mr. Misra, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner draws the attention of the Court to the minutes of the 25th meeting of the REAC on 25th to 27th November, 2020. It contains detailed observations in relation to M/s. Rashmi Cement Limited and M/s. Rashmi Udyog Private Limited but none with regard to Petitioner No.1. He also drew attention to the subsequent minutes of the 31st meeting of REAC held on 25th to 26th February 2021 and in particular to the portion where the REAC has recommended the project proposals in relation to both the entities, subject to compliance with certain conditions. His submission is that the earlier observations in the 25th meeting of the REAC vis-a-vis the two entities no longer held good and stood clarified at the subsequent 31st meeting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....approved subject to certain terms. Therefore, it does appear that the very basis for the action against Petitioner No.1 has been rendered non-existent. 16. At this stage, it must be noted that under Rule 9 of 2007 Rules, the competent authority can suspend or cancel the licence for breach of the terms and conditions of the license but this has to be a precedent by an SCN. In the present case, the earlier suspension of the licence which already stood revoked by the letter dated 10th February 2021, was subject only to the condition that Petitioner No.1 would rectify the discrepancies and undertake not to repeat such mistake in future. Although Mr. Misra has handed over to Mr. Parija a copy of the letter dated 1st March, 2021 in which it is stated that Petitioner No.1 has rectified the discrepancies, the Court finds no difficulty in directing that Petitioner No.1 will, not later than 10th March 2021, file an affidavit with Opposite Party No.3 confirming that it has rectified the discrepancies and undertaking not to repeat such mistake in future, as required by the letter dated 10th February, 2021 issued by Opposite Party No.3. 17. As regards the reasons given for suspension of t....