9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red to entertain the same without reference to any period of limitation provided therefor and dispose the matter after giving an opportunity of proper and effective hearing to the petitioner on all aspects, for which it prefers an appeal. The writ petition is disposed of. - Justice N. Seshasayee For the Petitioner : Mr.S.Baskaran For the Respondents : Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan Dy. Solicitor General for R1 R2 ORDER The petitioner herein is a proprietary concern and it has engaged in the business of importing and trading of certain articles relevant for pharmaceuticals company, food industries, beverage industries etc. 2. The petitioner has been in this business for over six decades. While so, on 15.05.2019, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time, Vide its proceedings dated 28.10.2019 it had indicated that the petitioner has not produced any document for the import from 2002 to 2019, something which is in variance with the earlier show cause notice dated 15.05.2019. It also made a reference to a certain case, which is under the investigation of the CBI. The petitioner would challenge this order Vide W.P.No.31195 of 2019. This Court Vide its order dated 06.11.2019, directed the petitioner to prefer an internal appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred W.A.No.4071 of 2019. 5. Now, during the pendency of W.A.No.4071 of 2019, the respondent revoked the order of suspension, following which, the petitioner made two imports, one from the US and another from Japan vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed to operate its IE Code for importing goods. 9.1. The learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the respondents submitted that the order passed by the JDGFT, Bangalore on 28.10.2019 is a speaking order and he had considered all the aspects. It is true that the petitioner challenged this in WP.No.31995 of 2019, wherein, this Court had directed the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority constituted under the Act. However, the petitioner opted to challenge this order in W.A.No.4071 of 2021. Contrary to the contention of the petitioner, no Authority at any point of time had revoked the suspension earlier imposed Vide order dated 28.10.2019, and the two imports made, one from the United States of America and another from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
