2022 (2) TMI 156 - HC - Customs

Benefit of Scrip based FTP Schemes - Notification dated 31 December 2021 - HELD THAT - Respondents seeks time to file an affidavit-in-reply in this writ petition. The Petitioner would be at liberty to file online application for SEIS and other benefits, which are part of this petition. It is made clear that if such application is received, the same shall be processed in accordance with law. Place the matter on Board on 31 January 2022 (HoB) under the caption of Directions .

Summary

Issues:
1. Relief sought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Extension of deadline for submitting applications for Scrip based FTP Schemes.
3. Petitioner seeking additional reliefs compared to other writ petitions.
4. Request for time to file an affidavit-in-reply.
5. Decision on allowing the Petitioner to file an online application for benefits.
6. Timeline for filing affidavit-in-reply and rejoinder.

Analysis:
1. The Petitioner sought various reliefs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Counsel highlighted a previous order allowing the Petitioner to file an online application for SEIS benefits by a specified date, subject to pending writ petitions.

2. The Counsel for the Petitioner referred to a notification extending the deadline for submitting applications for Scrip based FTP Schemes until a later date. The Petitioner aimed to benefit from one of the schemes mentioned in this notification and requested a similar order from the court to submit the application by the extended deadline.

3. The Petitioner's Counsel pointed out that the reliefs sought in the present writ petition were partly different from those in other writ petitions. The court acknowledged this distinction.

4. The Respondent's Counsel sought time to file an affidavit-in-reply, which the court considered without prejudice to either party. The court intended to protect the interests of both parties by passing an order similar to a previous one in related writ petitions.

5. The court allowed the Petitioner to file an online application for SEIS and other benefits mentioned in the petition. It was clarified that such applications would be processed according to the law, with outcomes subject to the ongoing writ petition.

6. A timeline was set for the Respondents to file an affidavit-in-reply and for the Petitioner to provide a rejoinder, ensuring both parties had the opportunity to present their arguments before the court. Additionally, the court directed the Respondents to accept the Petitioner's online application by a specified date, keeping the eligibility issue open for further consideration.

This detailed analysis covers the various issues addressed in the judgment, outlining the legal arguments presented by both parties and the court's decisions on each matter.