Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2016 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 185 - MADRAS HIGH COURTRejection of refund claim - Reimbursement of Central sales Tax - Inter-state purchase made by an EOU from another EOU - Manufacture and export of injectable drugs and infusion technologies - Held that:- when the policy provides for reimbursement under paragraph 6.11, the said objective was prevented or diluted by the Appendix. The Appendix is meant for effectuating the rights contained in the policy and not to frustrate the operation of the substantive right. The Appendix should be meant only for reaching the objective and definitely should not be meant for defeating a person from getting the fruits of the substantive right provided in the policy. A procedure should not run contrary to the substantive right in the policy. Here, it is only a procedural amendment and not a policy amendment. When the policy gives a right to the petitioner for claiming refund of taxes, it cannot be prevented by making an amendment in the procedure. The petitioner can be prevented only if the policy is amended prohibiting refund of tax for the purchases made from an 100% EOU. The procedure was to be prescribed by an authority in implementing the policy and must be in consonance with the policy. If the procedural norms are in conflict with the policy, then the policy will prevail and the procedural norms to the extent they are in conflict with the policy, are liable to be held to be bad in law. Since the impugned communciations are in conflict with paragraph 6.11 of the Foreign Trade Policy, the same are liable to be set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant
|