MVA FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, herein, are Private Limited Companies and through these two writ petitions they have sought for a direction to the respondents to refund the application fees deposited by them for issuance of Value Based Advance Licence in terms of the Import Policy 92-97, together with interest at the rate of 17.5% per annum with effect from the date of refund of the application till payment. As both the writ petitions involve identical facts and similar question fact, we propose to dispose of both the writ petitions by this common judgment and order.

(2.) With an idea of bringing in reform in the Trade Policy, Value Based Advance Licence scheme was introduced for five years for achieving stable policy providing greater flexibility within the overall value limits and without any quantitative restrictions. Accordingly Trade Policy AM 92-97 was introduced. According to Para 48 of the said Policy, an exporter was given option either to apply for Value Based Advance Licence or Quantity Based Advance Licence. In terms of the aforesaid Policy, the petitioner applied for the issue of Value Based Advance Licence and also deposited the prescribed licence fee. The details of the applications for grant of licence and the amount of fee in respect of each of them are as under: i. Application dated 12-8-93 with application fee Rs. 91.921.00 vide Challan No. 2744 dated 12-8-93 received by respondent No.3 vide receipt No.353206 dated 13- 8-93 as per Annexures' B, B-l & B-2'. ii. Application dated 1-9-93 with application fee Rs. 97,225.00 vide Bank Receipt No.3103 received by respondent No.3 vide receipt No. 12068 dated 2-9-93 as per Annexures'C, C-1 & C-2'. iii. Application dated 8-9-93 with application fee Rs. 8,633.00 vide Bank Receipt No. 3241 received by respondent No.3 vide receipt No. 12986 dated 10-9-93 as per Annexures' D,D-l and D-2'. The total amount of application fees thus paid was Rs. 1,97,779.00

(3.) However, subsequent to the filing of the aforesaid applications there was a change in the aforesaid policy in terms of which the respondent No.2 issued a Public Notice dated 14.9.1993 in respect of item in question namely 'Polypropyline' declaring it a sensitive item. The said Public Notice farther laid down that henceforth, no Value Based Advance Licence would be issued and made provisions only for issuance of Quantity Based Advance Licence. Since the applications of the petitioner were for grant of Value Based Advance Licences and since no such licence could be given under the new policy adopted by the respondent No.2, the petitioner submitted application asking for refund of the application fees submitted by it along with their applications. The respondent, however, insisted that the petitioner should submit revised applications in terms of the new policy and also in terms of the aforesaid Public Notice. Being so aggrieved by the actions of the respondents, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition claiming refund of the application fees deposited by the petitioner along with interest. C.W.P. 3338.1995.