9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 18425/2005 dated 30-7-2009 is challenged by the appellants. Summary: Facts Leading to the Appeals: The respondent, a company engaged in producing and exporting ornamental granite, filed a writ petition to quash a tender notice related to its machineries due to delays in operations caused by various reasons. The respondent had obtained permission to import machinery without customs duty under a policy but faced challenges in meeting export obligations. Despite exporting granite, a demand notice for customs duty was issued, leading to a series of legal actions including appeals and petitions. Contentions: The appellant argued that the order of assessment confirmed by various authorities and the Supreme Court's dismissal of a special leave petition should have been considered by the Single Judge. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the direction to extend the permission should invalidate the assessment due to the extended license period. Key Points Considered: The High Court noted that the permission was granted to the respondent as a 100% Export Oriented Unit with obligations to fulfill export duties, which were not met within the permitted period. The assessment order was challenged but reached finality with the Supreme Court's decision. The Court emphasized that the respondent failed to bring up the permission extension during previous legal proceedings, leading to the finality of the assessment order. Decision: The Court held that allowing the writ petition based on the license extension was impermissible in writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the Single Judge's order in W.P. No. 18425/2005 dated 30-7-2009 was set aside.
|
