2014 (9) TMI 380 - HC - Customs

Deemed Export Benefits (DEB) - Bill of Entry in the name of the project authority - challenge is also to certain notifications and circulars of the Foreign Trade Policy on the basis of interpretation whereof the DEB was denied to the petitioner - Held that - The present is clearly a case of the petitioner having indulged in fence sitting. The petitioner clearly chose not to pursue its own claim and was satisfied with the rejection of its request. The petitioner, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to revive such a claim which it had given up and / or which had become stale merely because some other who was not satisfied with a similar rejection of its claim having challenged the same and the said challenge having succeeded. The matter in fact is not res integra. - money claim, suit for which has become barred by time / limitation, cannot be allowed in writ jurisdiction. - writ petition dismissed - decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to denial of Deemed Export Benefits (DEB) based on meeting decisions, maintainability of monetary claim under Article 226, application of limitation period for filing the petition, consideration of delay and laches in seeking remedy, revival of stale claim, bar on money claims in writ jurisdiction due to limitation, dismissal of petition due to laches and delay.

Analysis:

1. The petition challenged the denial of DEB by the respondent based on decisions taken in a meeting held on 15th March, 2011. The petitioner sought direction for the release of DEB amounting to Rs. 72 crores. The matter was transferred to a Bench due to the challenge involving interpretations of notifications and circulars of the Foreign Trade Policy.

2. The Court examined the maintainability of the monetary claim under Article 226. The limitation period for such claims was discussed, citing relevant case laws. It was noted that the right to sue accrued on 21st March, 2011, and the petition filed after 20th March, 2014 was beyond the prescribed limitation period.

3. The petitioner's argument regarding delay and laches was considered. The Court highlighted that repeated representations and rejections do not extend the limitation period. The petitioner's failure to pursue the claim actively was noted, and the lack of response to the petitioner's letter further weakened the case.

4. The Court emphasized that the petitioner cannot revive a stale claim that was not actively pursued. Reference was made to a previous judgment where a money claim barred by time was not allowed in writ jurisdiction.

5. Citing legal precedents, the Court reiterated that the extraordinary remedies under the Constitution are not meant to recover monies barred by limitation. The dismissal of a Special Leave Petition in a similar case further supported the decision to dismiss the present petition.

6. The Court referred to another judgment where the suit for recovery of the amount in question would have been barred by limitation if filed on the date of the writ petition. This highlighted the inappropriateness of directing payment in such cases under Article 226.

7. Additionally, the Court mentioned that petitions under Article 226 are generally not entertained to enforce civil liabilities, as highlighted in previous judgments. The petitioner's attempt to rely on judgments unrelated to the present monetary claim was deemed irrelevant to the case at hand.

8. Ultimately, the Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it without imposing any costs, emphasizing the importance of adhering to limitation periods and active pursuit of claims in legal matters.