Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1984 (1) TMI 212

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... these petitions are entitled to cash assistance under the Export Assistant Scheme for Cotton Textiles announced by the Union of India, the 1st respondent, for the period between 1st April 1978 and 31st March 1979. 2. The petitioners are manufacturers and exporters of cotton ready-made garments. The said Scheme was introduced with a view to induce exporters to export the textiles covered thereby and give them the incentive of replenishment licences or cash assistance. The cash assistance is given by the first respondent through the Indian Cotton Mills Federation, the 2nd respondent. 3. By a circular dated 19th April 1978 the second respondent announced the said Scheme and gave therein the rates of cash assistance admissible on the export .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as issued by the second respondent and was dated 6th January 1979. After reference to the circular dated 19th April 1978 it stated that cash assistance applicable to the exports of shirts, blouses, dresses, skirts and trousers would be discontinued with effect from 1st January 1979 if the exports were made to USA, EEC, Australia, Finland, Sweden and Norway. 6. The petitioners made representations against the withdrawal and, ultimately, filed these petitions seeking to quash the decision to withdraw contained in the circular dated 6th January 1979. 7. An identical petition, being Writ Petition No. 1869 of 1979, came up for hearing before my brother Pendse and by his judgment and order dated 24th November 1983 he allowed it. It may be not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ioned petitions an affidavit in reply filed by the first respondent which sets out its case with regard to the withdrawal of the said Scheme. The deponent of the affidavit, the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports Exports, states that the cash assistance ( cash compensatory support , as he calls it) was announced and given for the purpose of offsetting the losses of the trade. He submits that the 1st respondent was entitled to and justified in law and on facts in withdrawing the said Scheme with effect from 1st January 1979 inasmuch as the floor price of the categories of garments in respect of which cash compensatory support has been discontinued with effect from 1st January 1979 had substantially risen in the international market and mor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e of prices after 1st January 1979 would not benefit those exporters such as the petitioners who had entered into contracts prior to 1st January 1979. They would sustain a loss and would need the cash assistance under the said Scheme to offset it. There was, therefore, no good reason to withdraw the cash assistance to exporters who had entered into contracts under the said Scheme prior to 1st January 1979. 12. The petitioners acted upon the representation of the 1st respondent that they would get cash assistance to compensate their losses. They entered into unprofitable contracts and suffered losses. There is no good reason, no equity, no supervening public interest that justifies the conduct of the 1st respondent in resiling from its rep .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rice. 15. It is crystal clear that this sentence was used in the circular announcing the said Scheme only to make it plain that the 2nd respondent incurred no obligation under the said Scheme. 16. To accept Mr. Sethna s letter submission would be tantamount to holding that, however clearly the 1st respondent may express its representations, the representations cannot be relied upon and the 1st respondent is always free not to act thereon. The 1st respondent itself would not, I think, want its representations so treated. 17. The petition is dismissed against the 2nd respondent. The decision and order of the first respondent reproduced in the circular of the 2nd respondent dated 6th January 1979 is quashed and set aside insofar as it af .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates