9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (2) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m Jan. 1966 when the requisite export commenced and continued thereafter. 2. By a circular dated Aug. 17, 1966 the Government of India informed the Secretary, Export Promotion Council that it was decided to grant cash assistance against exports effected from June 6, 1966 the date of devaluation of the Indian rupee on specified engineering products. Under that circular, there is no dispute (vide para. 12 of the petition, the company's claim in respect thereof is admitted in the affidavit-in-opposition para. 10 as substantially correct) that cast iron spun pipes, classified under ferrous castings would be entitled to cash assistance at the rate of 20%. The Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports of the Government (hereinafter referred as JCCI E) issued cheques from time to time of sundry amounts as such cash assistance in favour of the company and during the period from July 1966 to June 1967 in all a sum of ₹ 2.81.267.00 as cash assistance was paid to the company by Sept. 18, 1967. 3. On June 4, 1969, JCCI E informed the company that according to the then policy, no cash assistance was admissible against exports in discharge of export ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve allegations and contentions, the petitioner moved this court in constitutional writ jurisdiction praying for writs quashing the impugned decision of the Government withholding the cash assistance on exports during the relevant period as also the adjustment of its rightful dues against such cash assistance already paid. A writ in the nature of mandamus was also prayed for restraining the Union of India and its concerned authorities from giving effect to impugned circulars or decisions. On this application this Court issued a Rule on the said respondents to show cause why appropriate writ prayed for should not issue and such orders should not be passed as would be deemed fit and proper. 6. The respondents showed cause to the Rule by filing an affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by Bimal Kanti Biswas, Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. It was stated therein that the company accepted the terms of licence for import of plant and machinery providing for export of 15% of its annual production and executed an undertaking for securing such export. Further when the licence was granted there was no scheme for cash assistance. Accordingly as there was no alteration o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duced. It was held that even though the scheme was not there on the assumption that there was no restriction or limitation in respect of cash assistance to which the company was entitled for obligated export, it could not be said that there was any alteration of position to its detriment by the company in exporting goods on the representation of cash assistance. The learned Judge was further of the opinion that the cash assistance subsequently withdrawn could not be treated as trade receipts. The Rule accordingly was discharged. The appeal before us is against this decision. 9. Mr. Noni Coomar Chakravarti learned Advocate for the respondents raised a demurrer contending that the company had neither pleaded nor established any legal right, which could be remedied by issuance of any writ in a proceedings under Article 226(1) of the Constitution. And it was not established that the company had a statutory right to cash assistance nor that there was any violation of any statutory provisions by the respondents. The application it was submitted accordingly was patently not maintainable in law. 10. It is true there is no specific pleading that the company's l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted its products on the basis of the promise for cash assistance and but for such promise it would not have exported the goods, thereby altering its position to its detriment. In fact when the licence for import of plant and machinery with export obligation was given no question of grant of cash assistance against export arose as the grant was directed to be given by the circular of Aug. 17, 1966 with effect from June 6, 1966. It could not therefore be said that there was such representation of an existing fact which raised an estoppel or a representation of a future act which could be enforced at law or in equity. As to the Company's case that it entered the cash assistance as trade receipt in its books of account and paid Income Tax thereon, it is obvious that such entry as alleged to have been made was not based on any representation that it was to be treated as such. It was treated as such by the company on its own, prima facie on its mistaken conception and also it has not been shown to our satisfaction that such cash assistance is to be deemed as income assessable under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly in agreement with the learned Judge we hold that there was no que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'D' to the petition and appears to be complete in all respect with list of products and percentage of assistance annexed. Item (29) of Group III is in respect of iron and steel casting which include spun pipes, cash assistance being at the rate of 20% of f. o. b. value on export. In this circular there is no provision that the cash assistance would not be available even when the exporter was under obligation to export a specified percentage of its production. The Export Promotion Scheme valid and current for the relevant period was not produced before the Court to establish that the scheme was applicable to normal exports without any tied condition under Export obligation scheme. In the affidavit-in opposition, it was stated that it was not the policy of the Government to give cash assistance where exports had been made in fulfilment of export obligation. Unfortunately no document was produced before the court to establish the Govt.'s intention based on authority as alleged that no assistance including cash assistance against exports prior to April 1, 1969 made in fulfilment of export obligation was to be granted. In the relevant circular of Aug 17, 1966 (Annexure &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
