SPML INFRA LIMITED, (FORMERLY SUBHASH PROJECTS AND MARKETING LTD.,) MFAR SILVERLINE TECH PARK. 2ND FLOOR, PLOT NO. 180, EPIP ZONE-2ND PHASE, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE 560 006, (REP. BY DIRECTOR. MR DEEPAK SETHI S/O SRI ANIL SETHI) Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the communications dated 11.07.2011 issued by the Regional Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Government of India, Ministry of Commerce, produced collectively at Annexure -A and also the Minutes of the meeting of Policy Interpretation Committee held on 15.03.2011 produced at Annexure -B. As per the impugned communications dated 11.07.2011, petitioner is called upon to refund the so called excess payment made to it in connection with Duty Draw Back based on the Deemed Export Scheme.

(2.) PETITIONER is a company engaged in the business of construction of various power and water supply projects and supply of materials to such projects. According to the petitioner, as per the Foreign Trade Policy 2004 -09 of the Government of India, supply of capital goods and spares to power projects were required to be treated as 'Deemed Exports' subject to the condition that the procedure under International Competitive Bidding (ICB) was followed. It is their case that under Chapter -VIII of Foreign Trade Policy 2004 -09 suppliers under Deemed Export would be entitled for Duty Draw Back claims of the duty paid on the capital goods supplied to power projects.

(3.) SEVERAL contentious on merits are urged by the petitioner referring to various provisions of law. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent seeks time to file a detailed statement of objections meeting all these contentions. However, having regard to the glaring mistake committed in the decision making process by the respondents as is discernable from the impugned communications produced at Annexure -A, in that, a decision to call upon the petitioner to refund the amount has been taken without providing an opportunity to the petitioner to have their say in the matter and that an opportunity is proposed to be given to the petitioner to give representation after the decision is made on the merits of the claim, I am of the considered view that it is unnecessary for this Court to examine the merits of the contentions raised by the parties. It is necessary to notice here that the petitioner's claim has been accepted and the amount is already paid. If the authorities want to have a relook in the matter, then the same cannot be done behind the back of the petitioner as it will have a very serious consequence on their rights.