Just a moment...

Report
ReportReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Report an Error
Type of Error :
Please tell us about the error :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

2025 (4) TMI 836

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Ankit Shah for respondent Nos. 1 and 3. 2. This Court passed the following order on 22.06.2022: "1. The petitioners have approached this Court questioning the action on the part of the respondent no. 2, - Directorate of Revenue Intelligence in initiating an inquiry as to whether the subject Service Exports from India Scrips have been properly issued to the petitioner no. 1 by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) - respondent no. 3. The petitioners challenge the very jurisdiction of the respondent no. 2 on the ground that such scrips have been issued under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FTDR Act) read with Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-20 and that the respondent no. 2 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....diction to process the classification of the services provided which is under domain of the Director General of Foreign Trade. 4. It was therefore submitted that the initiation of the investigation proceedings by the respondent-DRI is liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah for the respondent submitted that respondent-DRI has only initiated the investigation and has not reached upon any conclusion and after considering the documents submitted by the petitioner, the DRI-respondent No. 2 is required to take initiation of any action against the petitioner. It was therefore, submitted that no interference be made by this Court at the stage of investigation being conducted by respondent No. 2. ....