TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it has not been the intention of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014, for the reimbursement of the Central Sales Tax paid on the goods supplied from one Export Oriented Unit to another Export Oriented unit. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner, in the above writ petitions, cannot be granted. Hence, both writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. However, it goes without saying that it may be open to the petitioner to challenge the Office Memorandum, issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce, EOU Section, dated 11.4.2014, and the communication, dated 15.06.2015, issued by the Assistant Development Commissioner, Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, if so advised, in the manner known to law. Unless the said communications, clarifying the position relating to the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14 and the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20, are challenged and set aside, such clarifications would hold the field, with regard to the claims made by the petitioner, for the reimbursement of the Central Sales Tax, paid in respect of the goods supplied from one Export Oriented Unit to anoth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on the same Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014. However, when the petitioner had claimed reimbursement of the Central Sales Tax, paid on the materials procured by the petitioner from the Special Economic Zone, for the period 2013-14, the respondent, vide letter, dated 30.4.2014, had denied the reimbursement of the Central Sales Tax paid by the petitioner, even though the payment of sales tax is exempted in such cases. 7. The respondent, vide letter, dated 22.1.2015, had stated that under the existing provisions already available in the relevant Foreign Trade Policy and the Central Sales Tax Act, the supply of goods to the Export Oriented Units shall be treated as Deemed Exports and the payment of the Central Sales Tax is exempted. Hence, the petitioner had been advised to approach the Sales Tax authorities, for exemption of the payment of the Central Sales Tax, for the purchases made from the Special Economic Zone unit, located at Noida-SEZ. The said advice of the respondent is illogical and impracticable and it is misleading, being contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy. The claim of the petitioner is for the reimbursement of the Central Sales Tax already paid. Hence, the question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he prior period, vide letter, dated 15.6.2015. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had placed before this Court an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 30.3.2016, made in W.P.Nos.15646 and 26004 of 2014, in support of the claim made by the petitioner. The learned Single Judge, by his order, dated 30.3.2016, has set aside the communication, dated 28.4.2014, issued by the Development Commissioner, Madras Export Processing Zone, Chennai, and the communication, dated 11.4.2014, issued by the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Industry and had, consequently, directed the Development Commissioner, Madras Export Processing Zone, Chennai, to grant refund of the claims, to the petitioner therein, on the purchases made from the 100% Export Oriented Unit. The learned Single Judge had stated, in his order, dated 30.3.2016, that, when the policy provides for the reimbursement of the Central Sales Tax, under paragraph 6.11, the said objective had been prevented or diluted by the Appendix. He had further held that the Appendix is meant for giving effect to the rights contained in the policy and not to frustrate the operation of the substantiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It had also been stated that the new provision would not apply, retrospectively, for the prior periods. Therefore, the request of the petitioner, for reimbursement of the Central Sales Tax, for the period mentioned, in its letter, dated 16.5.2015, had been rejected. 13. From the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and on perusal of the records available, it is noted that the Assistant Development Commissioner, Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, by his communication, dated 15.06.2015, had made it clear that the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20, released by the Government of India, has permitted the reimbursement of the Central Sales Tax from DTA/SEZ/EOU units and that the said provision would take effect, prospectively. It has also been stated that the said provision would not apply retrospectively, for the prior periods. However, the petitioner has not challenged the said communication, till date. 14. In fact, a clarification has been issued by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce, EOU Section, dated 11.4.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
