TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of entertainment has been crossed with such order. What remains is the question of adjudication of the rival claims of the parties based on the authorities cited. Even though a writ petition may have been admitted and Rule Nisi issued perceiving that it involves a purely legal point which requires an adjudication on merits but at the time of final hearing it appears to the same Court that such legal point arising for determination would involve investigation of certain disputed questions of fact and which could well be agitated and appropriately decided by the statutory appellate forum, there is no reason as to why the writ petition can still not be disposed of by the Court expressing that the petitioner would have the liberty of raising all points in a statutory appeal against the order-in-original and obtain a determination both on factual and legal issues - It should, therefore, be the endeavor of the Court to decide the lis on factual issues on the basis of affidavit evidence, if possible; if not, the litigant could be relegated to the statutory forum that is available in judicious exercise of discretion. The Principal Commissioner confined his inquiry to the branches of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted, does not commend to be sound - The order-in-original dated 27th February, 2017 suffers from illegality as well as irrationality which constitute vices in the decision making process, attracting judicial review. Evaluation of facts by the Principal Commissioner, upon such review, leads to the conclusion that the facts taken as a whole did not logically warrant the conclusion he did reach, for which the said order is liable to be invalidated. Petition allowed. - WRIT PETITION NO. 1794 OF 2017 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1006 OF 2021 - - - Dated:- 6-4-2022 - DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ M. S. KARNIK, J. Mr. V. Sridharan, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Yogesh Patki a/w Mrs. Rashna Khan and Ms. Poorva Garg i/by Mulla Mulla and Craigie Blunt and Caroe for petitioners. Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. J. B. Mishra for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. D. P. Singh for respondent no.3 JUDGMENT [Per DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ.]: The Challenge: 1. An order-in-original dated 27th February, 2017 [spread over 46 (forty-six) pages] passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import-I), which was preceded by a show-cause notice dated 24th November, 2015 [spread ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roleum operations undertaken under specific contract dated 22.12.2008 under New Lease Exploration Policy is also fulfilled. The noticee has failed to fulfill the said mandatory condition in the case. The import of Drill Ship ABAN-ICE is thus not liable for any duty exemption as it failed to be goods eligible for the duty exemption against Sr.359 of Exemption Notification No.12/2012-Cus Dated 11.03.2012. d) The noticee has willfully suppressed the facts and the Drill Ship ABAN-ICE is being utilized for the other blocks which are not covered under the specific contract dated 22.12.2008 for which it was imported under duty free under the exemption notification claimed. Their efforts to add on blocks to the essential certificate are also are of not much help to them as any additions to the invalid Essential certificate are not legal in terms of Doctrine of Curability. Even if they wanted to get the operations in other blocks to get regularized, it would be mandatory to get the said blocks added to the said specified contract dated 22.12.2008 under New Lease Exploration Policy as the goods to be eligible for the exemption against Sr.No.359 ibid. required to be goods which would be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hore Ltd. (Noticee) on the nonpaid Customs duty as shown in para (ii) above under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962 and order the recovery of said amount forthwith. iv) I confiscate the imported goods i.e. the Drill Ship ABAN-ICE having declared CIF value of ₹ 616,48,55,767/- [Rupees Six Hundred Sixteen Crore Forty Eight Lakh Fifty Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Seven only] as per Bill of Entry [CIF value of ₹ 620,69,93,704/- (Rupees Six Hundred Twenty Crore Sixty Nine Lakh Ninety Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Four only) as per the said Essentiality Certificate], under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 which was seized under proviso to Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and released provisionally against Undertaking/Bond. However I give an option to M/s. Aban Offshore Ltd. (Noticee) to redeem the said goods in lieu of confiscation on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 60,00,00,000/- [Rupees Sixty Crore Only], under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962. v) I impose a penalty amounting to ₹ 91,60,43,316/- [Rupees Ninety One Crore Sixty Lakh Forty Three Thousand Three Hundred and Sixteen only] on M/s. Aban Offshore Ltd. (Noticee), un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... undertaken by ONGC with the permission/license granted by the Central Government fell within PML or production sharing contracts issued under NELP. Accordingly, drill ships used for drilling to produce crude oil move between various blocks as per drilling programme finalized by ONGC from time to time. (b) ONGC, as per usual practice, invited tenders for a charter hire of drill ship for its off-shore petroleum operations. The petitioner no.1, Aban Offshore Ltd. (hereafter AOL , for short), successfully bid in the tender process. Pursuant thereto, a letter of award dated 6th June 2013 was issued by ONGC in favour of AOL. Thereafter, AOL and ONGC entered into a formal contract dated 19th September 2013 which, inter alia, provided that the drill ship, imported by AOL, would be deployed by it only for jobs arising out of the contract. The contract also specifically provided that the drill ship will be deployed in eligible PML areas (issued or renewed after 1st April 1999) and NELP areas only, where customs duty exemption is available as per Customs Notification No. 12/2012-Cus dated 1st March, 2012 (hereafter the said exemption notification , for short). (c) The Central Governm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CE could be put to use for petroleum operations as MB-OSN-2005/6. It was also indicated in the last line of the certificate that it was valid for a period of 6 (six) months from the date of issue. (f) Block MB-OSN-2005/6 was covered by a production sharing contract dated 22nd December 2008 entered into by and between the Central Government and ONGC under NELP VII and such block was the first block where petroleum exploration activities under the contract between ONGC and AOL were expected to commence in terms of a letter dated 22nd August, 2013 issued by the former to the latter. It was in pursuance of such letter dated 22nd August, 2013 that AOL/ONGC indicated MB-OSN-2005/6 as the first block in the on-line application made to the DGH dated 22nd October 2013. Consequently, the Essentiality Certificate specified the said block where the drill ship Aban-ICE could be deployed for petroleum operations. (g) However, 6 (six) days after the application for essentiality certificate was filed by AOL on 22nd October 2013, ONGC vide letter dated 28th October 2013 conveyed to AOL that the details of First Drilling Location for Aban-ICE have been changed and the new location is NELP bloc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conditions of PE-PML blocks in the Essentiality Certificate. (m) On 3rd August 2015, the writ petition was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court directing release of Aban-ICE from seizure on compliance of the conditions imposed therein by the petitioners. The authorities were left free to initiate proceedings in accordance with law against the petitioners, if they so desired. Before parting, the coordinate Bench thought it appropriate to invite the attention of all concerned to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai vs. Tullow India Operations Ltd. AIR 2006 SC 536, and accordingly, quoted paragraphs 23 to 36 thereof in the concluding paragraph. It is not in dispute that compliance of all the conditions led to release of Aban-ICE. (n) Availing the leave granted by order dated 3rd August 2015, the DRI issued show-cause notice dated 24th November, 2015 alleging that AOL had contravened the conditions of the said exemption notification in the import of Aban-ICE and that there had been consequent evasion of customs duty by it. The petitioners responded to the show-cause notice by filing a detailed reply as well as compilat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, 1950 by restricting the petitioners right to carry on trade. Proceedings before the Court 3. As the arguments advanced by the respondents in course of hearing would unfold, which we propose to narrate later, it is of utmost importance to notice certain relevant orders passed by this Court on this writ petition. They are referred to hereafter: (a) By an order dated 26th April 2017, this Court accepted the request of the respondents 1 and 2 for posting the writ petition on 19th June, 2017 to enable them file their reply affidavit. The statement made on behalf of the such respondents that no coercive measures would be initiated against the petitioners on the basis of the impugned order-in-original till 23rd June, 2017 was recorded and accepted as an undertaking to the Court. The petitioners were required to deploy Aban-ICE for the contract (copy at page 315 of the writ petition) and any activity including moving of the vessel beyond the limits of the contractual stipulation was restrained. (b) Order dated 19th June, 2017 permitted the petitioners to add the Ministry of Petroleum as a party. Notice was directed to be iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments cited at the bar, prima facie we are of the view that the adjudicating authority was not justified in discarding the amendments to the Essentiality Certificate; thus imposing customs duty, interest and penalty on the petitioner who is a subcontractor of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC), engaged in providing offshore drilling and production services in relation to oil exploration at various sites in Mumbai High. 6. Admit. 7. Since the parties are represented and affidavits have been filed, issuance of formal notice stands obviated. 8. In the meanwhile, there shall be stay of the impugned order in original dated 27/2/2017 (Exh. A to the writ petition). 9. Since pleadings are complete, list the matter for final hearing on 26/11/2020. *** (e) Although the Court, in the aforesaid order, recorded that the affidavits had been filed and the writ petition was directed to be listed for final hearing, no prayer was made before us for leave to file an additional reply-affidavit at the instance of the respondents 1 and 2. The parties have, therefore, referred to the pleadings before us which, inter alia, include the reply affidavit of the respondents 1 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Based on the above, the respondents 1 and 2 have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Affidavit in Reply of Respondent No. 3 6. The affidavit sworn by Mr. Sandeep Saksena, working as HOD (Essentiality Certificate) at the Directorate of Hydrocarbons, says that the Essentiality Certificate dated 4th November 2013 was issued covering block MB-OSN-2005/6 because the particulars of the said block were indicated in the application. In paragraph 4, it is conceded that No Objection Certificate (hereafter NOC , for short) was issued by the DGH on 6th July 2015, ex-post facto, by adding another block, namely, MB-OSN-2005/5. According to the deponent, the role of the respondent no. 3 is limited to the extent of issuing the Essentiality Certificate and it has no concern whatsoever with the issuance of the impugned order-in-original. Paragraph 7 of the affidavit in reply refers to the general procedure for applying and issuance of Essentiality Certificate. Insofar as validity of the Essentiality Certificate is concerned, it is stated in paragraph 9 that Essentiality Certificate issued by the DGH has a validity of 6 (six) months or its use for clearing the goods from customs and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tract. c) ONGC vide letter dated 22nd August, 2013 (page 179 of the WP) initially intimated the first block to be MB-OSN2005/06. Later, vide letter dated 28th October, 2013 (page 181 of the WP), this block was changed by ONGC to MB-OSN2005/05. Thereafter, based on the request of AOL, application was filed by ONGC on 1st November, 2013 for grant of Essentiality Certificate (page 163 of the WP). However, due to lack of attention with respect to precise details, the block number was not changed in the application made for the Essentiality Certificate; hence, the Essentiality Certificate indicated the Block as MB-OSN-2005/06 eligible under Sr. No. 359 of the said exemption notification (page 173 of the WP). There is no allegation with respect to Essentiality Certificate issued for import of consumables/spares for Aban-ICE. Aban- ICE was imported along with various spares and consumables by filing bill of entry dated 5th November, 2013 and exemption was granted based on the Essentiality Certificate. When exemption is extended to spares/consumables, it is completely illogical not to extend the benefit of the exemption to the drill ship. d) After import of Aban-ICE, various other co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one eligible project to another project (paragraph 2.1 of the circular, at page 1). DGH in its affidavit has also confirmed that they routinely grant NOC. i) Mentioning the block number is not a requirement of the said exemption notification. Such mentioning is a surplusage in terms of the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Auto Tractors Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) 1989 (39) ELT 494 (SC). j) The fulcrum of the Principal Commissioner s order is that Essentiality Certificate is valid for 6 (six) months and, therefore, ex-post facto approval by the DGH is incorrect (page 79 of the WP, at paragraph 31.1). This is fundamentally wrong. First, the validity of six (6) months specified in the Essentiality Certificate is for the purpose of import, in order to avail benefit of the said exemption notification. This certainly does not mean that the Essentiality Certificate dated 4th November, 2013 is non est or invalid after six months as held by the Principal Commissioner in his order, especially when Aban-ICE was imported on 5th November, 2013, i.e., within six (6) months from the date of issue of the Essentiality Certificate, i.e., 4th November, 2013. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 27th February, 2017. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 1 2 8. Mr. Jetly, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition. According to him, the orderin-original dated 27th February, 2017 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) is amenable to challenge in a statutory appeal under section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. It is, therefore, his contention that the petitioner ought to be relegated to the appellate forum, notwithstanding that the writ petition was admitted and the pleadings exchanged. 9. In support of such contention, Mr. Jetly relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Anr. vs. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti Anr. (2008) 12 SCC 675. 10. Next, Mr. Jetly placed reliance on our decision in Hover Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India Ors. OS Writ Petition No. 2223 of 2021, decided on 29th October, 2021., where it was held that the bar to the entertainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, despite there being an alternative remedy, may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued for a particular block the same cannot be amended or modified. Paragraph 9 of the reply of the respondent no.3 dated 20th December, 2017 was referred to in this context, wherein it is stated that: The Essentiality Certificate once utilized cannot be amended or modified as its existence then, is null and void i.e. a EC once issued specifying a particular block . 15. Mr. Jetly stressed that the respondent no.3 has stated that it is necessary to indicate in the Essentiality Certificate the block or blocks wherein the imported goods are proposed to be deployed/utilized. In terms of the Essentiality Certificate dated 4th November, 2013, it was valid only for 6 (six) months and therefore any amendment made after expiry of such period is not legal in terms of the doctrine of curability. It was, thus, asserted that the adjudicating authority rightly held the amendments (addition of blocks) to the Essentiality Certificate by later issuance of a NOC to be invalid and hit by the doctrine of curability. 16. It was further contended that the purpose of issuance of Essentiality Certificate is just to validate the conditions put forth by the importer to claim import of goods. How ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the vices that could attract judicial review? c. What relief, if at all, the petitioners are entitled to? DECISION WITH REASONS 22. The objection raised by Mr. Jetly that the petitioners should be relegated to the forum provided by section 129A of the Customs Act for availing the statutory appellate remedy has not really impressed us. 23. More often than not, the Supreme Court has held that the rule which requires the exhaustion of alternative remedies is a rule of convenience and discretion, rather than a rule of law. At any rate, it does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court. Despite an alternative remedy being available to the party invoking the writ jurisdiction and such remedy not having been pursued by it, the same does not make a writ petition not maintainable before the Court. A writ petition would well-nigh be maintainable but it is a question of its entertainability by the Court, i.e., whether, on facts and in the circumstances, the Court would entertain the writ petition in the exercise of its discretion. 24. In the present case much would depend on the order dated 6th October, 2020 passed by a coordinate bench of this Court while admitting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner. (italics in original) 28. We are no doubt bound by the aforesaid declaration of law. However, we are equally bound by the declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in L. Hirday Narain vs. ITO (1970) 2 SCC 355, where it was held that: 13. *** An order under Section 35 of the Income Tax Act is not appealable. It is true that a petition to revise the order could be moved before the Commissioner of Income Tax. But Hirday Narain moved a petition in the High Court of Allahabad and the High Court entertained that petition. If the High Court had not entertained his petition, Hirday Narain could have moved the Commissioner in revision, because at the date on which the petition was moved the period prescribed by Section 33-A of the Act had not expired. We are unable to hold that because a revision application could have been moved for an order correcting the order of the Income Tax Officer under Section 35, but was not moved, the High Court would be justified in dismissing as not maintainable the petition, which was entertained and was heard on the merits. (emphasis ours) 29. Pertinently, the Bench of the Supreme Court that decided Utt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , however, leads us to the view that despite the seeming inconsistency in the conclusions reached by the coordinate benches, read harmoniously such inconsistency is capable of being reconciled. Even though a writ petition may have been admitted and Rule Nisi issued perceiving that it involves a purely legal point which requires an adjudication on merits but at the time of final hearing it appears to the same Court that such legal point arising for determination would involve investigation of certain disputed questions of fact and which could well be agitated and appropriately decided by the statutory appellate forum, there is no reason as to why the writ petition can still not be disposed of by the Court expressing that the petitioner would have the liberty of raising all points in a statutory appeal against the order-in-original and obtain a determination both on factual and legal issues. In our considered opinion, having regard to L. Hirday Narain (supra), the Court may proceed to decide a writ petition finally after Rule Nisi is issued, if no disputed questions of fact were involved. Availability of the alternative statutory remedy which has not been pursued, in such a case, m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rectness of the ratio in Sun Export Corpn. v. Collector of Customs, AIR 1997 SC 2658 (hereinafter referred to as Sun Export case , for brevity), namely, the question is - What is the interpretative rule to be applied while interpreting a tax exemption provision/notification when there is an ambiguity as to its applicability with reference to the entitlement of the assessee or the rate of tax to be applied? 2. In Sun Export case, a three-Judge Bench ruled that an ambiguity in a tax exemption provision or notification must be interpreted so as to favour the assessee claiming the benefit of such exemption. Such a rule was doubted2 when this appeal was placed before a Bench of two Judges. The matter then went before a three-Judge Bench consisting one of us (Ranjan Gogoi, J.). The three-Judge Bench having noticed the unsatisfactory state of law as it stands today, opined that the dicta in Sun Export case, requires reconsideration and that is how the matter has been placed before this Constitution Bench. *** 53. After thoroughly examining the various precedents some of which were cited before us and after giving our anxious consideration, we would be more than justified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his case comes within the parameters of the exemption clause or exemption notification. 66.2. When there is ambiguity in exemption notification which is subject to strict interpretation, the benefit of such ambiguity cannot be claimed by the subject/assessee and it must be interpreted in favour of the Revenue. 66.3. The ratio in Sun Export case is not correct and all the decisions which took similar view as in Sun Export case stand overruled. 36. Law has been clearly laid down in Dilip Kumar (supra) that in case of ambiguity in an exemption notification, which is subject to strict interpretation, the benefit of such ambiguity cannot be claimed by the subject/assessee and it must be interpreted in favour of the revenue. It also follows from the above excerpts that though Sun Export (supra) has been held not to lay down correct law and all decisions taking a view similar to Sun Export (supra) have been expressly overruled, the Constitution Bench in Dilip Kumar (supra) explained the other Constitution Bench decision in CCE vs Hari Chand Shri Gopal (2011) 1 SCC 236, by observing that the question there was different, i.e., whether, a person claiming exemption, is re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nditions of the said exemption notification. 39. It seems to us that the Principal Commissioner confined his inquiry to the branches of the tree without taking the pains to find what was at its root. Clause 1.1.12(a) of the contract dated 19th September, 2013 by and between ONGC and AOL (referred to therein as operator and contractor respectively) required AOL to mobilize and deploy the drilling unit along with crew so as to commence the operations at the designated first drilling location nominated by the operator (ONGC) within a period of 180 days from the date of Letter of Award from the operator. The rig will be deployed by the operator anywhere in offshore Indian water. However, the 1st drilling location will be West Coast offshore Indian waters . Further, clause 3.8 thereof on Personnel Mobilisation provided that for the purposes of the said agreement the operating area shall be anywhere in offshore Indian waters. In the event there is a change of location from West Coast to East Coast or vice versa and the contractor shifts its office to the new location, the operator shall pay all reasonable expenses thereby incurred from the original location to the new location ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first deployment was in specified NELP area and it was shifted to non-specified area i.e. PEL/ML area. A4) In our view there has been a violation of condition no.44 of Customs Notification No. 12/2012-Customs dated 01-03-2012 (Sr. No. 359) in the case of ABAN ICE by M/s. Aban Offshore Limited inasmuch as, in as much as (sic) the first deployment was in specified NELP area and it was shifted to non-specified area i.e. PEL/ML area. Q5) If there is a violation as stated by you in your answer above, please state who is liable to pay customs duty as per condition 44(c)(iii) of Customs Notification No. 12/2012-Customs dated 01-03-2012 (Sr. No. 359) and in terms of the affidavit/undertaking furnished to Customs as per 44(c)(ii) (iii) in case of ABAN ICE imported by M/s. Aban Offshore Limited? A5) According to our understanding, as per condition 44(c)(iii) of Customs Notification No. 12/2012-Customs dated 17-03-2012 (Sr. No. 359) and in terms of the affidavit/undertaking furnished to Customs as per 44(c)(ii) (iii) in the case of ABAN ICE imported by M/s Aban Offshore Limited, ONGC is liable to pay customs duty for the violation discussed above. 41. Even if the offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould there be any ambiguity, the benefit thereof must be interpreted in favour of the revenue. The essential/substantive/mandatory condition embedded in the said exemption notification would imply that the drill ship had to be used for petroleum drilling operations and in off-shore waters on the West coast with ONGC as the operator to claim benefits of exemption and this condition has not been shown to have been breached. The breach here is of a technical nature with little or no significance qua working of the drill ship for petroleum exploration operations. It is not the law laid down in any of the aforesaid decisions that despite there being no breach of any essential condition, a technical breach of procedure in applying for exemption cannot be waived. Even otherwise, in case of a breach of any of the mandatory terms of the said exemption notification, the terms of the contract executed by and between ONGC and AOL made ONGC liable therefor and not AOL. We have, therefore, failed to persuade ourselves to agree with Mr. Jetly that the liability was rightly foisted on AOL. 45. The entire controversy, as we find, has arisen because of the mistake committed by AOL in not correct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of its validity and not beyond. Once the validity expired, the Essentiality Certificate could not have been touched because it ceased to exist. In such circumstances, the NOC issued by the DGH on 6th July, 2015 effectively was of no worth insofar as the claim for exemption is concerned. 48. The Doctrine of Curability has been noticed by the Supreme Court and applied in India in cases mainly arising out of election petitions under the Representation of People Act, 1951. We may in this connection refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in G.M. Siddeshwar vs. Prasanna Kumar (2013) 4 SCC 776, where the Court upon consideration of various precedents answered the questions formulated in paragraphs 1 and 2. Certain paragraphs of such decision would seem to make the position clear as to what is curable and what is not. We quote such paragraphs below: What is an election petition 45. However, another aspect of this contention is that if the provisions of Section 83 of the Act are not complied with, then the election petition that has been filed cannot truly be described as an election petition. 46. In Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore, AIR 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a fatal nature as to attract dismissal of the election petition at the threshold. 50. The doctrine of substantial compliance as well as the doctrine of curability were followed in V. Narayanaswamy v. C.P. Thirunavukkarasu, (2000) 2 SCC 294. This Court held that a defect in verification of an affidavit is not fatal to the election petition and it could be cured. Following Moidutty, (2000) 1 SCC 481 , it was held that if the election petition falls foul of Order 6 Rule 16 and Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and does not disclose a cause of action then it has to be rejected at the threshold. 51. Somewhat more recently, in Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar v. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar, (2009) 9 SCC 310, this Court reiterated this position in law and held: (SCC p. 324, para 50) 50. The position is well settled that an election petition can be summarily dismissed if it does not furnish the cause of action in exercise of the power under the Code of Civil Procedure. Appropriate orders in exercise of powers under the Code can be passed if the mandatory requirements enjoined by Section 83 of the Act to incorporate the material facts in the election petition are not complied with. 52. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st 2000 for ₹ 9,30,514/-. One of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner before the Court was that the validity period of the DEPB is only twelve months and no extension thereof is permissible. The Division Bench found upon consideration of various sections of the Foreign Trade (Development Regulations) Act, 1992 that the same did not confer any power to cancel or suspend a license retrospectively. The Court also proceeded to consider an earlier Division Bench decision in M/s. Stella Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana (2009) 20 VST 62 (P H) where the point for consideration was whether an eligibility certificate granted under Rule 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 could be withdrawn or cancelled after the benefit thereunder has been availed or the currency of the eligibility certificate had expired. The Court had observed that once the benefit available to the petitioner was availed of by it by 31st March 2002, meaning thereby that in terms of the conditions of the eligibility certificate the same ceased to be operative thereafter, no action possibly could have been taken under sub-rule (8) of Rule 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
