9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nikunt Raval waives service of Rule on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2 whereas learned advocate Mr. Dhaval D. Vyas waives for respondent no.3. 1.2 Heard learned advocate Mr. Paresh M. Dave for the petitioners and learned advocate for the respective parties. 2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for direction against Director General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India and against Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, Ahmedabad, respondents no.1 and 2 herein respectively, to accept the applications of the petitioners for grant of export benefits under the Scheme called Rebate of State and Central taxes and Levies (RoSCTL) Scheme in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k and RoSCTL Scheme came to be denied to the petitioners. 3.1 In March 2019, the Central Government discontinued the earlier scheme and new scheme called the Rebate of State and Central taxes and Levies (RoSCTL), was introduced. The export benefits thereunder of Electronic Duty Credit Scrips were continued to be granted by the Director General of Foreign Trade for export of textile goods. The exporter was required to file the shipping bill under Section 50 of the Customs Act. The Customs EDI system has prescribed Scheme Codes for various export benefit schemes. For various export benefit schemes, the shipping bills are to be uploaded electronically into the system by declaring such scheme codes. 3.2 For simple Drawback benefit, it is the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authorities to grant the benefit under the scheme and not issuing duty free Scrip in favour of the petitioner for exports was illegal and arbitrary. It was submitted that the decision was based only on the technical ground that earlier the petitioner had entered the Scheme Code 19, which was not applicable and that the newly changed Scheme Code 60 was not entered in the system by the petitioner. 4.1 In support of the plea that such technical hindrance should not be allowed to override the substantive entitlement of the petitioner, decisions in Bombardiar Transportation India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Directorate General of Foreign Trade [2021(377) ELT 489 (Guj.)], in Vishnu Aroma Pouching Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2020(38) GSTL 289(Guj)], in P.A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e server i.e. ICEGATE to DGFT server. Due to this, petitioner firm has not been able to submit a claim, within the stipulated deadline, which was initially 31.12.2021 but was later extended through Notification no. 58 dated 07.03.2022 to 15.03.2022. Thus, it may be noted that there is no application materially present for the impugned shipping bills, before the DGFT for any claim under ROSCTL. 5. The controversy lies in narrow compass. The petitioner claimed the benefit of scheme called Rebate of State and Central Taxes and Levies in respect of 70 shipping bills generated for the export. The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Mundra, manually approved the conversion of shipping bills from earlier scheme by permitting the change of Scheme C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en permitted to take toll of the petitioner's rights under the scheme to avail the benefits. 5.3 Supreme Court in Saiyad Mohammad Bakar El-Edroos (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. Abdulhabib Hasan Arab & Ors. [(1998) 4 SCC 343], held that procedure cannot operate to defeat the ends of justice, it must stand to the aid of justice, "8. A procedural law is always in aid of justice, not in contradiction or to defeat the very object which is sought to be achieved. A procedural law is always subservient to the substantive law. Nothing can be given by a procedural law what is not sought to be given by a substantive law and nothing can be taken away be the procedural law what is given by the substantive law." 5.4 Even if the petitioner had entered wrong s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icular course of proceedings which, conformable with the practice of the court, ought to have been observed". 5.4.1 It was further stated that irregular conduct or procedure could not have debilitating effect on the substantive rights of the party, "5.3 A thing irregularly done is not regularly done. It is not in conformity of rule or principle. The concepts "illegal", "irregular" and "procedurally irregular", are often understood in terms of their degree which they bear to be not in conformity with rule of particular course of action. The illegality is a highest kind of breach of law which will taint and vitiate the action. One who commit "illegality" has to be denied the assertion of his right and he stands disentitled to relief in law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
