2018 (10) TMI 172 – KARNATAKA HIGH COURT – TMI – Served From India Scheme – It is the contention of the petitioner that such scrips obtained by the Indian “Service Providers” under the SFIS scheme could be used for import of any capital goods, spares, professional equipment, office equipment, office furniture and consumables – Jurisdiction.
–
Held that:- The show cause notice has been issued in the year 2014, the Policy Interpretation Committee under the Chairmanship of Director General of Foreign Trade has interpreted the policy on 27.12.2011 itself and on the premise that the proceedings are pending, petitioner claims to have approached the Court and this would not be a good ground to entertain the present writ petition, which has been filed belatedly. A litigant who seeks to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court cannot be heard to contend that representations or memorials were being submitted to the authorities and same was not disposed of and thereby a dead cause of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
t 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).
–
Petition dismissed. – WRIT PETITION No.9556 OF 2018 (GM-RES) Dated:- 27-6-2018 – 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 amount of 10%
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
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 Government Standing
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
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 respondents seeks for dismissal
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
tted 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 wholly or in part would arise
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
s 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/authorities if not already considere
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =