Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (11) TMI 770

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ition fee over and above the amount already remitted by the petitioner is without jurisdiction and illegal - petition allowed. - Writ Petition No. 9750 of 2018 and W.M.P. No. 11673 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 2-8-2018 - T.S. Sivagnanam, J. Shri Adinarayana Rao, for the Petitioner. Shri J. Madhana Gopal Rao, Senior CGSC and T. Pramod Kumar Chopda, for the Respondent. ORDER Heard Mr. Adinarayana Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. J. Madanagopal Rao, Learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. T. Pramod Kumar Chopda, Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent. 2. This is the third round of litigation which the petitioner has initiated before this Court .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993 r/w. Section 9 of the Act. The petitioner submitted their reply to the show cause notice vide letter dated 22-5-2017, wherein among other things, they have stated that they have taken up the matter with Policy Relaxation Committee, New Delhi (PRC) and requested time till middle of September 2017 to appear for adjudication of the show cause notice. This request was not accepted or rejected, but an order was passed on 29-5-2017 placing the petitioner under the DEL. The petitioner requested for revocation of the said order vide representation dated 27-7-2017. Since the same was not considered, the petitioner filed W.P. Nos. 21634 and 21636 of 2017, wherein the petitioner sought for removing their name .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... communication was not justified and a direction was issued to the respondents to pass appropriate orders vide order dated 5-1-2018. 5. This was followed by a letter dated 12-1-2018. While accepting the request for grant of extension, the extension was granted for a period of six months from the date on which the time limit initially expired. Subsequently, another order was passed on 19-1-2018 withdrawing the interim reply dated 12-01-2018. In the said order also it is reiterated that the extension shall be granted for a period of six months from the date of expiry of the initial export obligation. These orders were put to challenge by the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 2304 and 2305 of 2018. They were heard together and were disposed of by a co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tition, has not referred to the case numbers and not taken note of the order in its entirety. The court specifically directed that no coercive action shall be initiated against the petitioner. That would mean that the petitioner s business activities should not have been hampered and their names should not have been retained in the denied entity list. Therefore, the second respondent ought to have complied with the said direction and removed the petitioner s name from the denied entity list. Thus, when the same has not been done, the impugned order dated 16-11-2017 calls for interference. 12. For all the above reasons, W.P. Nos. 2304 and 2305 of 2018 are partly allowed and the impugned order dated 19-1-2018 is set aside in so far as it s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r. 8. Unfortunately, the respondent-Department has lost sight of the fact that the initial application for extension of time remained undisposed of and was kept pending though the petitioner had remitted the composition fee as early as on 27-12-2017, being a sum of ₹ 41,027/-. Therefore, at this juncture, directing the petitioner to remit composition fee till the period 30-9-2018 is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. This Court would have been well justified in presuming that the impugned order has been passed to circumvent the direction issued in W.P. No. 113 of 2018, dated 5-2-2018. 9. Be that as it may, since the application for extension of time having not been rejected and order has been passed granting extension of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates