Disposed

M/S Sunway Construction Sdn Bhd v. Union of India

Karnataka HC10 Jan 2023WP/876/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the court was requested to quash letters regarding rejection of Terminal Excise Duty refund. The court directed the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade to reconsider the refund application within four weeks and granted the petitioner liberty to present further contentions.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade to reconsider the application for refund of TED and interest within four weeks, with liberty for the petitioner to plead further.

M/S Sunway Construction Sdn Bhd Vs Union of India — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.876 OF 2015 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S.SUNWAY CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD NO.20, 2^ND FLOOR, UNIWORTH PLAZA SANKEY ROAD BANGALORE - 560 020 REPRESENTED BY SURESH KUMAR. …PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.SANDEEP HUILGOL., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY UDYOG BHAWAN

¶12

NEW DELHI - 110 007.

¶13

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE UDYOG BHAWAN, MAULANA AZAD ROAD NEW DELHI - 110 011.

¶14

THE DEPUTY DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE UDYOG BHAWAN, MAULANA AZAD ROAD NEW DELHI - 110 011.

¶15

THE JOINT DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE KENDRIYA SADAN

¶16

6^TH FLOOR, 'C' & 'E' WING

¶17

2^ND BLOCK, 17^TH MAIN ROAD

¶18

¶19

KORAMANGALA BANGALORE - 560 034. …RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. SHANTHI BHUSHAN., ASG FOR R1; SRI.V.C.JAGANNATH., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO 4)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTERS BEARING FILE NO.07/083/081/TED DBK/MISC/AM14 DATED:10.07.2013 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 AND 01/92/180/47/AM-14/PC-VI DATED:20.10.2014 BY RESPONDENT NO.3, ETC.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Sri.Sandeep Huilgol., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.V.C.Jagannath., learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4 have appeared in person.

¶25

The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the letters bearing No.07/083/081/TED-DBK/MISC/AM14/27 dated 10.07.2013 issued by the fourth respondent vide Annexure-A and No.01/92/180/47/AM-14/PC-VI/216 dated 20.10.2014 issued by the third respondent vide Annexure-B and also sought for Mandamus directing respondents 3 & 4 to

¶26

¶27

refund the Terminal Excise Duty (TED) paid by the petitioner at the time of the procurement of goods along with interest.

¶28

Sri.Sandeep Huilgol., learned counsel for the petitioner in presenting his arguments, submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SANDOZ PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in 2022 SCC ONLINE SC 10, has formulated certain conditions for refund of Terminal Excise Duty to an Export Oriented Undertaking (E.O.U). He argued that the Apex Court in the above case has ordered a refund of TED. In the present case, the petitioner has made an application for refund of TED but the same has been dishonored. Hence, he submitted that a direction may be issued to the fourth respondent to reconsider the application for a refund of the TED in view of the decision of the Apex Court.

¶29

Sri.V.C.Jagannath., learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 submits that appropriate order may be passed.

¶30

¶31

Heard the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the writ papers and Annexures with utmost care.

¶32

I have also perused the decision of the Apex Court referred to supra with care.

¶33

There is no dispute that the petitioner has moved an application for a refund of TED and the same has been rejected. But in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court deem it appropriate to direct the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Bangalore - fourth Respondent to re-consider the application filed by petitioner for refund of TED paid by the petitioner at the time procurement of goods along with interest in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to supra within four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶34

In the last resort, Sri.Sandeep Huilgol., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may

¶35

¶36

be granted liberty to put forth his case before the Authority.

¶37

Submission is noted.

¶38

Liberty is reserved for the petitioner to put forth his contentions before the Authority. The contentions of the respective parties are kept open.

¶39

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of .

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

bnv

M/S Sunway Construction Sdn Bhd v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sunway Construction Sdn Bhd v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs R Parvathamma Vs the State by

Smt Geetha Bangera Vs the Repatriate Co-Operative Finance

Sri J S Venugopal Reddy Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Op. Societies

Sri a Vykunta Prabhu Vs Managing Director

Shruthi R Vs Dr R Shreenivas

M N Tulujaram Vs the State of Karnataka