Karnataka High Court
M/S Alstom Transport India Limited vs The Director General Of Foreign Trade on 2 December, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:50241
WP No. 27238 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 27238 OF 2024 (T-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S ALSTOM TRANSPORT INDIA LIMITED
NO. 66/2, 3RD FLOOR, EMBASSY PRIME,
BAGMANE TECH PARK, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 075
REPRESENTED BY K. JAGANNADHA RAO,
MANAGER
INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI RAGHAVAN, MS. PURVI ASATI &
MS. ASHWINI NAG, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE
VANIJYA BHAWAN,
NEW DELHI - 110 011
Digitally signed
by CHANDANA 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE,
BM OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
Location: High FOREIGN TRADE, KENDRIYA SADAN,
Court of 6TH FLOOR, C & E WING, 17TH MAIN ROAD,
Karnataka
KORAMANGALA 2ND BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560 034
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. TIMMANNA BHAT, ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE AND QUASHING
THE IMPUGNED ORDER-IN-REVIEW DTD. 26.02.2024 ISSUED FROM
FILE NO. 01/61/180/040/AM24/PC-3/E-35727/700 AND 701
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:50241
WP No. 27238 of 2024
HC-KAR
ENCLOSED AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1
UPHOLDING THE REJECTION BEARING NO. F.NO.
07/21/098/50266/AM20 LETTER DATED 29.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 ENCLOSED AT ANNEXURE-B WHICH
REJECTED THE SEIS CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER FOR FY 2017-18
TO THE TUNE OF RS. 9,74,95,044/- AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-
"a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India setting aside and quashing the impugned Order-in-
Review dated 26.02.2024 issued from File
No.01/61/180/040/am24/pc-3/e-35727/700 & 701
enclosed at Annexure-A passed by the Respondent No.1 upholding the rejection bearing No.F.No.07/21/098/50266/AM20 letter dated 29.03.2023 issued by the Respondent No.2, enclosed at Annexure-B, which rejected the SEIS claim of the Petitioner for FY 2017-18 to the tune of Rs.9,74,95,044/-.
b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order or -3- NC: 2025:KHC:50241 WP No. 27238 of 2024 HC-KAR direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the Respondent No.2 to issue a new Duty Credit Scrip to the Petitioner under SEIS for the FY 2017-18 for the amount of Rs.9,74,95,044/-.
c) Issue necessary directions to the Respondent No.2 to grant the SEIS claim of the Petitioner for FY 2017-18 to the tune of Rs.9,74,95,044/-.
d) Pass such further order(s) and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require."
2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner exported Engineering services relating to railways and metro projects during the year 2016-17 and 2017-18. It is contended that while the foreign exchange in relation to the financial year 2017-18 was received by the petitioner during said financial year 2017-18 itself, the foreign exchange in relation to the financial year 2016-17 was also received by the petitioner during the subsequent financial year i.e., 2017-18 onwards. It is also contended that the request of the petitioner for issuance of duty credit scrip for benefit of claim under Service Exports from India Scheme (SEIS) by submitting Form ANF-3B was allowed by the respondents for the financial year 2017-18, but the request of the petitioner for issuance of the said scrip for the benefit under SEIS -4- NC: 2025:KHC:50241 WP No. 27238 of 2024 HC-KAR claim for the financial year 2016-17 was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner had received foreign exchange subsequently during the financial year 2017-18 for the services rendered during the financial year 2016-17. Aggrieved by the said rejection of the benefit under the SEIS claim for the financial year 2016-17, the petitioner filed an appeal which was disposed of by the appellate authority vide order dated 24.05.2023 directing / advising the petitioner to file a review under Section 16 of the FDTR Act. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a review application against the rejection letter dated 29.03.2023 before the 1st respondent under Section 16 of the FDTR Act. By the impugned order dated 26.02.2024, the 1st respondent dismissed the review application, thereby confirming the rejection letter / order dated 29.03.2023 and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents - revenue and perused the material on record.
4. A perusal of the material on record, in particular, the impugned order will indicate that the claim for benefit under the -5- NC: 2025:KHC:50241 WP No. 27238 of 2024 HC-KAR SEIS and for issuance of duty credit scrip for the financial year 2016-17 sought for by the petitioner was rejected by the respondents by citing two reasons;
(a) that the petitioner had supplied services during the financial year 2016-17, who had received foreign exchange during the subsequent year i.e., financial year 2017-18;
(b) the petitioner was not entitled to the duty credit scrip insofar as it related to travel cost, inspection, R & D, software and re-invoicing etc., .
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reasons assigned by the respondents for rejecting the application of the petitioner is incorrect, in as much as, it is the financial year during which the earnings are realised that is relevant and not the financial year when the services were exported and consequently, merely because the petitioner exported services during the financial year 2016-17, the foreign exchange having been actually received by the petitioner during the financial year 2017-18, the petitioner was entitled to make the claim for benefit under the SEIS for issuance of scrips. It is also submitted that Form ANF 3B itself provides for claim for the earlier period and the respondents did not -6- NC: 2025:KHC:50241 WP No. 27238 of 2024 HC-KAR take into account their own Form by passing the impugned order, which deserves to be set aside on this ground also, especially when the rewards under the SEIS is based on the NFE earned by the petitioner. It is further contended that the claim under SEIS benefit towards inspection, software programming, RnD, re- invoicing etc., are all part of the engineering services exported by the petitioner and the respondents committed an error in rejecting the same without appreciating that even this claim is based on export of services. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the respondents be directed to issue Scrips for benefit of the SEIS claim and make payment to the extent of benefit granted under the SEIS.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the material on record discloses that though the petitioner had exported engineering services during the financial year 2016-17, petitioner received foreign exchange only during the financial year 2017-18; the aforesaid Form ANB 3B specifically -7- NC: 2025:KHC:50241 WP No. 27238 of 2024 HC-KAR provides / enables the petitioner to seek benefit under the SEIS claim for foreign exchange earned in a particular financial year for services exported in the previous financial year. Under these circumstances, merely because the petitioner had received foreign exchange during the financial year 2017-18, towards export of services for the previous financial year 2016-17, the said circumstance could not have been made the basis by the respondents to deny the benefit of the SEIS claim in favour of the petitioner for the earlier financial year, especially when petitioner was earning of foreign exchange, which is relevant or germane to claim the benefit under the SEIS claim and not the financial year during which it was exported and consequently, the impugned order passed by the respondents deserve to be set aside.
8. Insofar as the reasons assigned by the respondents to deny the benefit under the SEIS claim towards transport, inspection, R & D, re-invoicing are concerned, the respondents failed to consider and appreciate that the said categorization of earnings pertaining to exports were part of the engineering services exported by the petitioner and so long as the petitioner earned the foreign exchange in this regard, the petitioner would be entitled to -8- NC: 2025:KHC:50241 WP No. 27238 of 2024 HC-KAR the SEIS claim towards these expenses also and failure to appreciate this also is an erroneous conclusion arrived at by the respondents.
9. For the foregoing discussions, I am of the considered view that the impugned order at Annexure-A and the impugned letter at Annexure-B deserve to be set aside and the petition is disposed of by issuing certain directions to the respondents in this regard.
10. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned Order-in-Review at Annexure-A dated 26.02.2024 passed by the 1st respondent is hereby set aside and the impugned letter at Annexure-B dated 29.03.2023 issued by the 2nd respondent is hereby quashed.
(iii) The concerned respondents are directed to issue a new Duty Credit Scrip to the petitioner under SEIS and grant the SEIS claim to the petitioner for the Financial year 2017-18.
(iv) In the event, the concerned respondents are not in a position to grant / issue the aforesaid scrip in favour of the -9- NC: 2025:KHC:50241 WP No. 27238 of 2024 HC-KAR petitioner, the respondents are directed to make payment / grant a sum of Rs.9,74,95,044/- in favour of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SRL List No.: 2 Sl No.: 26