Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2014 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 1159 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURTGrant of Additional License - renewal of its certificate of recognition as a trading house - delay in filing application - case of Revenue is that though it is true that the petitioner filed an application for grant of an additional licence on 28-5-1984 but as the application was not accompanied by a trading house certificate and no fresh application was filed after renewal of trading house certificate on 18-2-1992, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief on the basis of applications dated 26-5-1984 or 26-2-1992. Held that: - The respondents have, in essence, taken a stand that application dated 18-2-1992, though filed within time cannot be entertained as it cannot be construed to be a fresh application filed after receipt of the renewed certificate but is for renewal of an application that was not maintainable. After a delay of nearly nine long years, certificate of recognition as a trading house, valid from 1-4-1983 to 8-11-1983, was issued, in accordance with the 1983-84 policy, on 18-2-1992. The petitioner, in accordance with rights conferred by Para 203(1) of the 1983-84 policy, allowing the petitioner to apply for an additional licence within two months of renewal, addressed letter dated 26-2-1992, within eight days of issuance of the certificate, to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Ludhiana, informing him that as it has received a trading house certificate on 18-2-1992, and while referring to a letter dated 27-8-1991 and in continuation of earlier letters, prayed that an additional licence be issued at the earliest - A perusal of the letter reveals that though it states that it may be read in continuation of letter dated 27-8-1991, which in turn relates back to application dated 26-5-1984, which as referred to earlier was filed when the application for renewal of the certificate was still pending, clearly prays for grant of an additional licence. The reasons assigned for rejecting the petitioner’s application are neither tenable nor germane to the controversy in hand but are based upon a perverse and arbitrary attempt to twist facts and misread application dated 26-2-1992 - The respondents have, in our considered opinion and for reasons we are unable to fathom, intentionally and by a technical play of words construed, this letter as a mere letter for revival of application dated 26-5-1984. The letter does not by any words whether specific or inferential pray for revival of application dated 26-5-1984 but instead specifically prays that an additional licence be issued. The use of the words “in continuation” etc. does not raise an inference, as held by the respondents that letter dated 26-2-1992 merely seeks revival of application dated 26-5-1984. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
|