Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2018 (3) TMI 287

fact is that the petitioner did not comply with the said condition within the time stipulated - Held that: - the impugned orders in W.P.Nos.2304 and 2305 of 2018 though appear to grant relief to the petitioner have in fact denied the relief. 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 ves .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

as granted by the second respondent on 04.02.2011. Subsequently the petitioner applied for advance authorisation with duty free facility to import raw materials under the obligation to re-export finished goods. Such advance 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 Consequently, the benefits under the advance licence were required to be withdrawn by the respondents 1 to 3. 4.At this juncture, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 11.06.2014 seeking for extension of time .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

t respondent to consider the various representations given by the petitioner and to extend the time granted in the advance authorisation dated 23.08.2012 and 04.07.2012 by another 6 months in order to fulfil the export 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

n issued by this Court. 7.Mr.N.Rajan, learned Senior Standing Counsel would vehemently contend that if the court is of the view that the extension should have been prospective, then the matter should be remanded 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. .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

he same has not been done, the impugned order dated 16.11.2017 calls for interference. 12.For all the above reasons, W.P.Nos. 2304 and 2305 of 2018 are partly allowed and the impugned order dated 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||