9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... benefits already stand transferred to the petitioner. On the basis of the said affidavit, the earlier writ petition had been rendered infructuous. The respondents did not choose to file application for review/recalling of the said order by explaining the facts, which are now sought to be explained when the petitioner has filed the present writ petition - the said approach of the respondents-authorities is not in accordance with law, inasmuch as, in case on the basis of certain factors, the respondents had the understanding that they could have still denied the relief to the petitioner, then they should have moved an application in the first writ petition detailing all the facts. However, the respondents-authorities have chosen to withdraw the benefit which, at one stage, had been conceded to by them in the earlier writ petition. The said proceedings are binding on the petitioner as well as the respondents and thus, once the respondents-authorities had chosen to issue the scrips then the non-registering of the same cannot be justified. The duty credit scrips issued in the present case are for a value of ₹ 3,25,43,947/- and since the petitioner has already deposited ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner that on 17-6-2019, staff of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter referred to as DRI ) searched the factory premises of the petitioner and during the course of search seized physical and electronic records lying in the factory premises and also recorded statement of the partners of the petitioner. It is further averred that the DRI summoned various input suppliers of the petitioner and the petitioner, to show its bona fide as per the direction of DRI, deposited a sum of ₹ 50 lakhs towards any future liability. It is averred that the DRI directed different authorities including DGFT to withhold export incentives and the DGFT without applying its independent mind withheld export incentives of the petitioner and put the name of the petitioner in the Denied Entity List (DEL). It is further averred that no prior opportunity was granted to the petitioner. Although, the DRI permitted the petitioner to continue their export, however, the DGFT on account of the directions/alerts issued by DRI did not release export incentives. References have been made in the writ petition to the letters dated 14-10-2020 (Annexure P-5) and 22-10-2020 (Annexure P-6) in which it has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iana Sd/- Dated: 11-11-2020 Deponent 5. A perusal of the same would show that the name of the petitioner was withdrawn from the Denied Entity List (DEL) vide letter dated 27-10-2020 and the duty credit scrips had been issued to the petitioner on 28-10-2020. The application of the petitioner had been accepted and the benefits stood transferred to the petitioner. Reference has also been made to the letter dated 22-10-2020 issued by the DRI to Additional DGFT in which, it has been stated that in view of the judgments passed by this court, the DRI has no objection if the DGFT decides to release duty export scrips to the petitioner. 6. That the abovesaid writ petition came up for hearing on 12-11-2020 and on the said date in light of the said affidavit, the petition was rendered infructuous and was disposed of accordingly. 7. Subsequent to the passing of the abovesaid order, the Deputy Director issued duty export scrips amounting to ₹ 3,25,43,947/-. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of having issued the abovesaid duty export scrips the respondents are not registering the duty credit scrips although several months have lapsed. It has been stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces for causing overseas enquiry. It has been stated that the DRI had requested the various authorities including the DGFT not to grant export incentives without NOC from the DRI. The DRI has admitted the issuance of letter dated 22-10-2020 communicating its no objection to custom authorities to release export incentives to the petitioner and the fact that the said letter was issued during the pendency of CWP No. 16214 of 2020. An explanation has been sought to be given by the DRI as to why the said letter was issued and why subsequent to the passing of the order by this court dated 12-11-2020 in the abovesaid writ petition the DRI has resumed the investigation. It has been stated that the investigation had been suspended on account of two judgments passed by this court and it was after the Hon ble Supreme Court of India had granted ad interim stay on the operation of the said judgments, that the DRI had resumed the investigation. It is further averred that the investigation conducted so far has revealed fraudulent availment of export incentives/benefits of the petitioner to the tune of ₹ 3.5 crores. It has been stated that the petitioner should not be permitted to take benef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had been suspended. In the alternate, by placing reliance upon two orders of this court, it has been argued that only 50% of the scrips may be permitted to be registered and utilised subject to the terms and conditions laid by this court in similar matters. 12. We have considered the submissions made by both the counsels and have perused the record. 13. It is the admitted case of the parties that after the DRI had searched the factory premises of the petitioner on 17-6-2019 and had issued an alert and had also directed the DGFT and the other authorities not to grant/release the export benefits to the petitioner, the petitioner had approached this court by filing CWP No. 16214 of 2020. It is also admitted between the parties that during the said proceedings a letter was issued by the DRI to the Additional DGFT granting its no objection to the DGFT for releasing the export scrips. The DGFT in turn had submitted an affidavit in the said proceedings clearly stating that the petitioner s name was withdrawn from the Denied Entity List (DEL) and that the scrips have already been issued to the petitioner on 28-10-2020. They had further stated that the benefits already stand transfer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 30 days from today. The duty credit scrips issued in the present case are for a value of ₹ 3,25,43,947/- and since the petitioner has already deposited ₹ 50 lakhs, thus, we find the offer of further deposit of ₹ 1 crore to be very just and fair, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The orders relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the respondents were passed on the basis of consensus. However, in the present case no such consensus has been reached. Thus, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition by passing the following directions :- (i) The petitioner is directed to pay an amount of ₹ 1 crore within a period of 30 days from today. The said amount would be over and above the amount of ₹ 50 lakhs, which the petitioner has already paid. (ii) The petitioner is also directed to provide security for the balance amount of the scrips i.e. ₹ 1,75,43,947/-, by furnishing personal surety duly supported by personal guarantees of two other persons within a period of 1 month from today. (iii) The respondents-authorities are directed to register the duty credit scrips in accordance with law, within a period o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
