Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Asian Food Industries Versus Union of India

2016 (12) TMI 1107 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Demand - Interest - Penalty - Held that: - the petitioner has agreed to deposit entire amount of ₹ 83,49,189/being benefit availed by the petitioner under VKGUY Scheme from the date of “Spices” was deleted / removed from VKGUY Scheme and considering the fact that during the pendnecy of the present petition, in which, initially, petitioner challenged action of the respondent in putting the petitioner in the DEL, the final order has been passed by the First Authority on the show cause notice .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of 2016 - Dated:- 22-11-2016 - M. R. Shah And B. N. Karia, JJ. Mr. Kamal Trivedi, LD. D K Trivedi, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr Devang Vyas, Advocate for the Respondent JUDGMENT ( Per : Honourable Mr. Justice M. R. Shah ) 1.0 As common question of law and facts arise in this group of petitions and are with respect to common petitioner, all these petitions are heard, decided and disposed of together. 2.0. That the common petitioner is engaged in the business of processing of agricultural produ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

leted / withdrawn from the aforesaid VKGUY Scheme the petitioner could not have availed the benefit under the said Scheme of ₹ 83,49,189/under different scripts. On the basis of the objection raised by the audit team, the petitioner was served with the 11 different show cause notices demanding the return / refund of ₹ 83,49,189/+ applicable interest from the date of issue of VKGUY duty credit script. The representative of the petitioner appeared before the respondent original authori .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the petitioner and the respondent had issued the show cause notices for recovery of the alleged excess payment, till any final decision is taken on the show cause notices, the petitioner could not have been treated as person in default. Considering the aforesaid submissions, the Division Bench vide order dated 19.10.2016 issued the notice / notices in the present petitions making it returnable on 17.11.2016. In the meantime, the first authority - Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade, Vadoda .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. By way of amendment, the petitioner has also challenged the said order dated 7.11.2016 by submitting that when the petitioner was before this Court and the this Court was seized with the matter and therefore, there was no proper representation by the petitioner before the authority. 4.0. Today, when the present petitions are taken up for further hearing, Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

efit by mistake as in fact they were not aware of the fact that the Spices came to be deleted / withdrawn from the aforesaid Scheme. It is submitted that even subsequently in the year 2011-12 even the licenses were issued in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted that therefore, this is not a case for imposing fiscal penalty. It is submitted on non deposit of ₹ 83,49,189/+ applicable interest, the petitioner is put in the denial entity list (DEL) and because of that the petitioner is no .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit an appropriate application before the appropriate authority to withdraw the name of the petitioner from DEL . 5.0. Shri Devang Vyas, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the respondent authority has stated at the bar under the instructions from the concerned officer who is present in the Court that if the petitioner unconditionally deposits ₹ 83,49,189/and on such deposit the First Authority is directed to adjud .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the above broad consensus between the learned advocates for the respective parties recorded herein above and considering the fact that the petitioner has agreed to deposit entire amount of ₹ 83,49,189/being benefit availed by the petitioner under VKGUY Scheme from the date of Spices was deleted / removed from VKGUY Scheme and considering the fact that during the pendnecy of the present petition, in which, initially, pe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

petitioner is given an opportunity to make suitable submission before the authority with respect to the interest on the aforesaid amount and fiscal penalty and to request the appropriate authority to remove the name of the petitioner from DEL. 7.0. In view of the above, it is directed that on deposit of entire amount of ₹ 83,49,189/with the appropriate authority which shall be deposited unconditionally as agreed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, to be deposited within a period of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version