2020 (4) TMI 475 - HC - Customs

Permission for setting up a 'Software Technology Park' with retrospective date - It is the case of the writ petitioner that certain imports had been made sometime in October-November 2005. These imports pertain to setting up of proposed STP is writ petitioner counsel's say and these imports have been made by claiming benefit of customs notification being N/N. 153/93 - HELD THAT - Having imported goods in October-November 2005 itself without waiting for LOP, writ petitioner cannot make a request now to advance the effective date of approval merely to take advantage and get benefit under a Customs notification. In the considered opinion of this Court, no tenable arguments has been made to say that the impugned order needs to be interfered with when the refusal to advance the effective date is based on the undisputed factual position that writ petitioner had only LOT and went ahead without waiting for LOP. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Approval date for setting up a Software Technology Park (STP).
2. Request for amendment of approval date.
3. Dispute over the effective date of approval.
4. Import of goods before receiving approval.
5. Refusal to advance the effective date of approval.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner applied for setting up an STP and received approval on 29.11.2005 without prior communication. The petitioner imported goods in October-November 2005 based on customs notification No.153/93.
2. The petitioner requested an amendment to the approval date in a representation dated 09.02.2006 to clear the imported consignment. A writ petition was filed seeking approval from the date of application (25.01.2005) or the IMSC meeting date (04.04.2005) instead of the approval date (29.11.2005).
3. The court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representations from 09.02.2006 and 21.03.2006. The Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology passed an order on 12.12.2018, denying the request to amend the approval date to an earlier date.
4. The Ministry's decision was based on the petitioner's importation of goods before receiving the Letter of Permission (LOP) for the STP, despite being aware of having only a Letter of Intent (LOI). The court noted that the petitioner imported goods before being officially informed of the approval on 29.11.2005.
5. The court found no grounds to interfere with the Ministry's decision, stating that the petitioner's actions of importing goods without official approval precluded them from requesting an earlier effective date. The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the case and the court's decision on each matter.