9911796707
Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Follow us:
|
Home
Issues: Grant of interim relief in a case involving machinery subject to government dues and export obligations under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Analysis: The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, comprising Anil R. Dave and K.A. Puj, JJ., heard arguments from the petitioner's advocate and the Asst. Solicitor General representing the respondents. The respondents argued against granting interim relief, citing a Supreme Court judgment. However, the court, after considering the facts and submissions, deemed it necessary to grant interim relief to the petitioner. The petitioner had purchased machinery under certain obligations, including an export obligation related to yarn manufacturing. The court noted that no harm would be caused to the government by granting interim relief at this stage as no dues were currently payable under the relevant Act. The court emphasized that granting interim relief would not equate to deciding the entire petition prematurely since no dues were immediately payable under the EPCG License. The court highlighted the obligation to export a specific quantity of yarn by a certain date and concluded that granting relief would not be detrimental. Consequently, the court restrained the authorities from seizing the machinery, allowing the petitioner to commence manufacturing and exporting goods to fulfill the transferor company's obligations. To safeguard the government's interests, the court directed the petitioner to deposit a specified amount with the court and execute a bond similar to the one executed by the transferor company. The petitioner was prohibited from selling or transferring the machinery without court permission until all obligations were met. The court also allowed the authorities to seek modification of the order if aggrieved. Additionally, the court rejected the request for a stay on the order's implementation to enable the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court, deeming the request unreasonable.
|
