2025 (2) TMI 172 - HC - GST

Refund of deposit made - petitioner s placement on the Denied Entity List by the Director General of Foreign Trade - alleged non-consideration of a detailed representation submitted by the petitioner - grievance of the petitioner is that it has given a representation on 25.04.2016 and without considering the same it has been placed in the Denied Entity List - HELD THAT - The representation is furnished along with the Writ Petition and the same is marked as Annexure-J. A perusal of the same reflects that it s a detailed representation and it runs 11 pages. Without considering the said representation the Director General of Foreign Trade placed the petitioner in the Denied Entity List. This is untenable. The action on the part of the respondents cannot be sustained. The authority concerned ought to have considered the representation that was submitted by the petitioner before taking any action against it. Hence this Court deems it proper to direct respondents 2 and 3 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner. A Mandamus is ordered directing respondents 2 and 3 to consider the representation dated 25.04.2016 submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure-J in accordance with the law. The third respondent is hereby directed to remove the petitioner s name from the Denied Entity List. Petition disposed off.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary issue considered by the Karnataka High Court was whether the petitioner's placement on the Denied Entity List by the Director General of Foreign Trade was justified, given the alleged non-consideration of a detailed representation submitted by the petitioner. The Court also considered whether the petitioner was entitled to a refund of the deposit made with the Commissioner of Customs following the disposal of the writ petition.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Justification for Placement on the Denied Entity List

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The case was evaluated under the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, and the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993, which govern the issuance of Import Export Codes and the regulation of foreign trade activities. The Court examined whether due process was followed in placing the petitioner on the Denied Entity List.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found that the petitioner had submitted a detailed representation on April 25, 2016, which was not considered by the respondents before placing the petitioner on the Denied Entity List. The Court deemed this action as arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice, emphasizing the necessity for authorities to consider representations before taking adverse actions.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Court noted the existence of the petitioner's representation, marked as Annexure-J, which was a critical piece of evidence indicating the petitioner's attempt to resolve the issue through proper channels. The Court found that the respondents' failure to consider this representation was a significant oversight.

Application of Law to Facts: Applying the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, the Court concluded that the respondents should have considered the petitioner's representation before placing it on the Denied Entity List. The Court directed the respondents to review the representation in accordance with the law.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner's counsel argued that the placement on the Denied Entity List was illegal and arbitrary due to the non-consideration of the representation. The respondents' counsel did not provide substantial arguments to counter this claim, leading the Court to favor the petitioner's position.

Conclusions: The Court ordered a Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and remove its name from the Denied Entity List, highlighting the importance of procedural fairness in administrative actions.

2. Refund of Deposit Made with the Commissioner of Customs

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The issue of refund was addressed in the context of the interim order requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs. 8 Crores with the Commissioner of Customs. The Court considered the implications of the writ petition's disposal on this deposit.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court acknowledged the petitioner's compliance with the interim order by depositing the required amount. Given the favorable outcome for the petitioner, the Court found it appropriate to order a refund of the deposit.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Court recognized the petitioner's compliance with the interim order as evidence of its good faith and cooperation with judicial directives.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied principles of equity and fairness, determining that the petitioner was entitled to a refund of the deposit following the favorable resolution of the writ petition.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents' counsel did not contest the petitioner's request for a refund, leading the Court to issue a straightforward directive for the refund.

Conclusions: The Court directed the Commissioner of Customs to refund the deposit to the petitioner upon proper identification, ensuring that the petitioner was not unduly penalized following the resolution of the case.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforced the principle that administrative authorities must consider representations and follow due process before taking adverse actions against entities. It underscored the importance of procedural fairness and the need for authorities to act within the bounds of law and justice.

Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court ordered the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and remove it from the Denied Entity List. Additionally, the Court directed the refund of the deposit made with the Commissioner of Customs, ensuring the petitioner was restored to its prior position following the writ petition's disposal.