9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particular port cannot be denied such a benefit. Such a discrimination, if at all must be substantiated by the respondents. However,the learned counsel appearing for the respondents is unable to provide any convincing reasons for the purpose of exclusion of ICD Arakkonam, from the list of ports incorporated in the scheme. This apart, the case of the writ petitioner was considered favorably by the authorities competent from the year 2014 onwards. As of now, the writ petitioner is availing the benefit of scheme and there was no objection at all. Thus, the five import transactions already done also deserve to be considered favorably based on the representation submitted by the writ petitioner. In view of the fact that the respondents have n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... importing goods from ICD, Arakkonam wherein the storage point is available. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that Status Holder Incentive Scheme implemented by the Government of India states the names of the Ports in Clause 5 of the notification dated 14.09.2009. 3. The grievances of the writ petitioner is that almost majority of the ports across the Country are named in the notification. However, the Port at ICD, Arakkonam, has not been included in the list of Ports. Thus, the benefit of incentives introduced by the Government of India had not been extended to the writ petitioner, while importing capital goods. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that since the ICD, Arakkona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ICD Arakkonam was an omission on the part of the Government of India and no reason has been furnished for the non-inclusion of the ICD, Arakkonam in the list of ports. Other ICDs' were incorporated in the scheme, while so, the ICD, Arakkonam, alone, has not been incorporated in the scheme. Therefore, the inference has to be drawn that it is the clear case of omission by mistake and for which, the petitioner cannot be penalised. When all other ICDs' are enjoying the benefit of incentive scheme, the importers at ICD, Arakkonam alone cannot be deprived of such benefits. However, at the time of granting permission for importing, no objections were raised by the competent authority with the writ petitioner. However, only after the comple ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir import transactions done by the writ petitioner as per their own representations. 8. However, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents is unable to provide convincing reasons for non-inclusion of the ICD, Arakkonam. Counter is also silent in this regard. In the event of exclusion of a particular port or ICD, certain reasons are to be provided. However no reasons are given. 9. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents states that such a ground of discrimination has not been raised by the writ petitioner in the writ petition. Eventhen, this Court is bound to consider all the legal grounds across the bar at the time of hearing of the writ petitions. 10.. When the import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... details and documents within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of any such representation from the writ petitioner, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider the same, in the light of the observations made in this order and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. In respect of other writ petition filed in WP.No.17178 of 2014, till the decision is taken on the representation to be submitted by the writ petitioner, the said show cause notice shall not be acted upon and the same shall be kept in abeyance. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings C.No.VIII/48/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
