Gstaad Hotels Private Limited, Versus Union of India Represented by The Joint Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and others.
Customs
2018 (10) TMI 172 – KARNATAKA HIGH COURT – TMI
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 27-6-2018
WRIT PETITION No.9556 OF 2018 (GM-RES)
Customs
MR. ARAVIND KUMAR J
Petitioner (By Sri. Ajesh Kumar.S, Advocate)
Respondents (By Sri Aditya Singh, Central Government Standing Counsel)
O R D E R
Petitioner being aggrieved by notice dated 31.10.2014 (Annexure-A) is before this Court.
2. The sum and substance of grievances raised by the petitioner in the petition is that a scheme was introduced by the Government of India in exercise of its power vested under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and Foreign Trade Policy (for short 'FTP') a scheme known and called as “Served From India Scheme” (for short 'SFIS') which provided for benefits in the form of duty credit scrip certificates equitant to an am
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
tended by Sri.Ajesh Kumar learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that Additional Director General of Foreign Trade has now issued a recovery notice dated 31.10.2014 to recover the entire value of the duty credit scrips which was granted to the petitioner Hotel irrespective of the quantum of utilization by the petitioner, by following pick- and choose policy and erroneously interpreting the law.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner by elaborating his submissions would contend that a meeting of the Policy Interpretation Committee (for short PIC) under the Chairmanship of 2nd respondent Director General of Foreign Trade came to be held on 27.12.2011 at 12.30 and said Committee have sought to interprete the term “All India Service Providers” at para 3, 12.2 of FTP 2009-14 for grant of duty credit scrip under “SFIS” scheme and it came to be clarified against the interest of petitioner. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for quashing of the notice.
6. Per contra Central
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
pment and Regulation) Act has interpreted extant policy of 2004-2009 and there is no new clause which has been introduced into the policy and the existing clause in the policy alone has been interpreted by the said Committee in order to accelerate the growth in export of services, so as to create a powerful and unique 'Served from India' brand. He would also draw the attention of the Court to the minutes of PIC- Policy Interpretation Committee, where under it has been clarified that said object of the policy is to encourage essentially Indian brands abroad and globally, so as to make India so unique and easily recognizable and create a distinct identity for itself both domestically and internationally, so as to enhance the Indian image and it is because of these precise reasons, the words that is coined as 'Serve from India' brand. Hence, he would also submit that petition is liable to be dismissed on merits as well as on delay and latches. On these grounds, learned counsel for respond
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
memorials were being submitted to the authorities and same was not disposed of and thereby a dead cause of action was alive and then, approach this Court belatedly. This view is fortified by the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER vs K THANGAPPAN AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2006 SC 1581.
10. That apart, sub-article (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India would indicate that power conferred under sub article (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person can be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. In other words, such power can be examined by this Court, notwithstanding that seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories and this Court can exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226(1), if the cause of action w
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
rd to contend that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition under Article 226(1). Merely because petitioner is also having a hotel at Bengaluru amongst being run by it chain of hotels across the country would not give rise for cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to exercise the power vested under Article 226(1). This view is fortified by the judgment by Hon'ble Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs Utpal Kumar Basu and others reported in (1994) 4 SCC 711 vide paragraphs 5, 6 and 12. Thus, even on the second ground of want of territorial jurisdiction this writ petition is not maintainable.
12. Though learned counsel for petitioner has canvassed arguments with regard to the merits of the case, this Court would not embark upon conducting or examining such plea, in as much as reply to the show cause notice (Annexure-A), which is said to have been submitted by the petitioner on 17.07.2015 is yet to be examined by the respondent/aut
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =