Madhya Pradesh High Court
Avi Agri Business Limited Thr. Praveen ... vs Union Of India on 21 August, 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
W.P. No.14996/2018
1
Indore, Dt.21.08.2018
Shri Ayushman Choudhary, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned ASG for the respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
Shri P.Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Heard.
By this writ petition, the petitioner is praying for issuance of writ of mandamus or any other writ directing the respondents to forthwith grant or issue IEIS duty credit scrips under yearly scheme on the basis of application submitted on 23.3.2015 (Annx.P/10). He has also prayed for quashment of clarification Circular No. 01/61/180/188/AM13/PC3 dated 23.09.2014 (Annx.P/9). He submits that clarification notice has been quashed by the Bombay High Court in the matter of JSW Steel Limited Vs. Union of India (W.P.No.1750/2015) vide order dated 25.1.2016. Paragraph Nos.32 to 37 are relevant which read as under :-
"32. This in turn means that apart from adopting a plain meaning approach to the interpretation of the 2013 Notification, we must also adopt a purposive approach to its interpretation and construction. Mr. Rana's submissions do not tell us how a cap or limit or specifying the maximum benefit would advance the purpose of the incentive scheme. All that these submission tell us is that there was a concern that none should receive undue or unintended benefit. There can be no cavilling with that. But it surely cannot be suggested that any incentive aboe Rs.20 lakhs is axiomatically and ipso facto an "unintended benefit." This is where an acceptance of Mr. Rana's submission takes us. But this was never the purpose nor the object of the 2012 Notification. The 2013 Notification HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE W.P. No.14996/2018 2 did not (and could not) suggest it.
33. Further, Mr. Nankani's submission that the 2012 Notification and 2013 Notification must receive a harmonious construction commends itself to us. Surely no person would subject himself to 'greater scrutiny' under clause (ii) of the 2013 Notification if all he was entitled to get was a maximum of Rs.20 Lakhs possible under clause (i) with less stringent a scrutiny. The fact that clause (ii) of the 2013 Notification specaks of 'claim in excess of this value' and 'greater scrutiny' can only mean that the 2013 Notification itself contemplated the issuance of incentive scrips above Rs.20 Lakhs.
34. The so-called Clarification impugned in these Petitions, dated 23rd September, 2014 is clearly incorrect. There is no basis for it whatsoever. It is quashed and set aside.
35. All four Petitions succeed in part. We hold that the 2013 Notification places no cap or restriction on the value of the IEIS scrip. The Authorities concerned will consider the petitioners' applications on merits bearing in mind our findings and this order and without any regard to the impugned Clarification of 23rd September, 2014.
36. The Petitions are disposed of in these terms with no order as to costs.
37. At the request of Mr. Jetly, we grant eight week's time to the Respondents to comply with the above directions."
Shri P.Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that said judgment of Bombay High Court has been followed by the Delhi High Court also in the case of M/s Welldone Exim Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as M/s G.D. Mangalam Exim Pvt.Ltd.) Vs. Director General of Foreign Trade and another, W.P. (Civil) No. 5082/2017 decided on 12.4.2018, whereby the Delhi High Court relying upon the judgment of JSW Steel Ltd. (supra) has allowed the writ petition and directed the Regional authority to examine the case of the petitioner for grant of export incentive and pass a HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE W.P. No.14996/2018 3 reasoned and speaking order and the application would not be rejected on the ground that total amount being claimed exceeded Rs.1 Crore during the financial year 2013-2014.
Considering the aforesaid, we relying upon the judgment in the case of JSW Steel Limited Vs. Union of India (W.P.No.1750/2015) decided on 25.1.2016 , direct the respondents to follow the directions issued by the Bombay High Court and comply with the order within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (S.K.Awasthi)
Judge Judge
mk
Digitally signed by
MUKTA KAUSHAL
Date: 2018.08.23
12:41:43 +05'30'