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

2018 (3) TMI 287

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ef. While passing the impugned order, the second respondent has exercised his power and granted extension of time and further made a direction unworkable by stating that the direction will operate from 22.02.2014. Thus, the benefit granted in favour of the petitioner has ended in futility and the impugned order is a paper order, probably with a view to comply with the direction issued by this Court. The second respondent cannot be given an opportunity to revise his own order and he having not been vested with any such power to revise his own order under the relevant regulations, the question of remanding the matter does not arise. With regard to the period for which the extension has to be granted, the respondent should have taken a r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... authorisation was granted to the petitioner on 04.07.2012. The advance authorisation contained a condition, by which the petitioner was obligated to export finished products within a specified time. The admitted fact is that the petitioner did not comply with the said condition within the time stipulated. Consequently, the benefits under the advance licence were required to be withdrawn by the respondents 1 to 3. 4.At this juncture, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 11.06.2014 seeking for extension of time to enable them to fulfil the export obligation based on the advance authorisation. The petitioner sent further representation on 08.10.2014 by enclosing a demand draft for ₹ 22,212/- stated to be the composition fe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t obligation. The writ petitions were heard by this Court and by a common order dated 16.08.2017, they were disposed of by directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.05.2017, seeking extension of time, examine the bona fides of the representations in accordance with the relevant regulations and pass a speaking order, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and till then, no coercive action shall be initiated against the petitioner. Pursuant to such direction, orders have been passed by the second respondent dated 19.01.2018 in respect of both the licences granting extension of time to the petitioner to fulfil 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

..... to the second respondent to consider the eligibility of the petitioner for extension of such prospective extension. 8.I do not agree with the submissions made by the learned Senior Standing Counsel to remand the matter to the second respondent to consider the eligibility of the petitioner for such prospective extension. After the petitioner's representation seeking extension, though the composition fee has been paid by the petitioner not once or twice the second respondent has decided to grant the extension only upto 02.07.2014. Therefore, the question of remanding the matter to the second respondent to once again decide the issue is unnecessary and uncalled for. 9.In other words, the second respondent cannot be given an opportun .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 19.01.2018 is set aside in so far as it stipulates the period of extension for fulfilling the export obligation be calculated for a period of six months from 22.02.2014 and the same is set aside with a direction to the second respondent to grant the petitioner extension of time by 6 months prospectively from the date of issuance of the order to be passed by the second respondent. 13.In the light of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.Nos. 21634 and 21636 of 2017 dated 16.08.2017 and the observations made above, W.P.No.113 of 2018 is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 16.11.2017 are set aside and the respondents 2 and 3 are directed to remove the name of the petitioner's company from the denied entity list. Both the above d .....

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