9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of circulars granting cash compensatory support on export of blended yarn, entitlement to additional 5% support, validity of demanding refund after three years, inadvertent payment justification, and equity in repayment. Analysis: The case involved a public limited company engaged in textile exports challenging a demand for refund of additional cash compensatory support granted by the government. The dispute arose from circulars issued on September 22, 1988, granting cash compensatory support on blended yarn exports. The key question was whether the company was entitled to an additional 5% support for blended yarn exports post-September 22, 1988. The High Court analyzed the circulars and ruled that the additional 5% support was not available for blended yarn exports based on the specific language of the circular. The court emphasized that the intention of the government was clear from the wording of the circular, which limited the additional support to items already enjoying cash compensatory support before September 22, 1988. The court rejected the company's argument that both circulars should be read together to include blended yarn exports, concluding that the company was not entitled to the additional 5% support. Regarding the demand for refund after three years, the court considered the company's reliance on the consistent payment of the additional support and the impact on their export commitments. The court found merit in the company's argument, stating that demanding a refund after such a period would be unfair and harsh. The court highlighted the firm commitments made by the company based on the government's payments and ruled in favor of the company, restraining the government from recovering or adjusting the additional support already paid between September 22, 1988, and July 2, 1991. The government argued that the additional support was inadvertently granted and justified the demand for repayment. However, the court rejected this argument, emphasizing that exporters relied on the payments to conduct transactions and that demanding a refund now would be unjust. The court noted the purpose of the support as an incentive for exporters to increase exports and deemed it inequitable to force the company to return the additional 5% support received. In conclusion, the court partially ruled in favor of the company, declaring that the additional 5% support was not available for blended yarn exports but restraining the government from recovering the support already paid. The court emphasized equity and fairness in its decision, considering the impact on the company's export operations and commitments.
|
