Disposed

Blue Star Ltd. v. the Union of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Dept O Commerce and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Jan 2015WP/11551/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged ineligibility for the 'Served from India Scheme' due to its business being classified strictly as sale of goods. The bench disposed of the writ petition in accordance with a prior order in WP No. 20/14, directing independent examination of the issue by the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, and noted that consequential orders shall follow.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction that consequential orders from Writ Petition No. 2011 of 2014 shall follow.

Blue Star Ltd. Vs the Union of India, Ministry of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

WP.11551.2013.5.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 11551 OF 2013

Blue Star Ltd.

} Petitioner

versus

The Union of India and Ors. }

¶8

Respondents

¶9

Mr. Prakash Shah with Mr. Jas Sanghavi and Mr. Arun Jain i/b. M/s. PDS Legal for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly with Ms. Shehnaz V. Bharucha with Mr. A. S. Rao for the Respondents.

¶11

CORAM :- S.C.DHARMADHIKARI & S.P.DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED :- JANUARY 5, 2015

¶12

P.C. :-

¶13

Petitioner Blue Star Ltd. has filed this Writ Petition aggrieved and dis-satisfied with an order dated 5^th June, 2013. The question is of an eligibility styled as “Served from India Scheme” ('SFIS' for short). Under this SFIS, the Government of India, Department of Commerce, through the Foreign Trade Development Officer, informed the Petitioner that the Petitioner is selling Air Conditioners of one international company in India and providing after sales services. Such services do not qualify for SFIS as it involves sale of goods only.

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

J.V.Salunke,PA

¶16

WP.11551.2013.5.doc

¶17

The grievance of the Petitioner is that the policy clarification, which has been given by the Policy Interpretation Committee and exercising powers under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, resulted in this communication.

¶18

Both sides fairly brought to our notice an order passed by this Court in a Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 2011 of 2014. The order passed on 5^th December, 2014, to which one of us (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.) is a party, directs that the issue be examined independently by the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Government of India. That was to take care of the apprehension of the parties and particularly like that of the Petitioner that the authorities under the above Act interpret their policies frequently and to the detriment of the parties like the Petitioner. Without expressing any opinion on the contention raised, we had directed the Secretary of the Department to examine and consider the issue.

¶19

Both sides fairly states that this order would also serve the ends of justice and if passed in the Writ Petition presently before us. Accordingly, we dispose of the present Writ Petition with the same order and directions as above passed in Writ Petition No. 2011 of 2014 dated 5^th December, 2014. All consequential orders and directions in terms of

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

J.V.Salunke,PA

¶22

WP.11551.2013.5.doc

¶23

the main order dated 5^th December, 2014 shall follow even in this case.

¶24

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶25

(S.P.DESHMUKH, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶26

Page 3 of 3

¶27

J.V.Salunke,PA

Blue Star Ltd. v. the Union of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Dept O Commerce and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Blue Star Ltd. v. the Union of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Dept O Commerce and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Backbone Projects Limited Vs the Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Dept of Revenue and Ors.

Benudhar Samal Vs Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)

Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs the Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Ors.