TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court denies DEPB entitlement claim for supplies to SEZ based on pre-2003 policy; issue estoppel not applied</h1> The court dismissed the petition filed by a Partnership firm seeking Duty Entitlement Pass-Book (DEPB) entitlement for supplies from Domestic Tariff Area ... - Issues:- Interpretation of Export and Import Policy 2002-07 regarding DEPB entitlement for supplies from DTA to SEZ units.- Application of principle of issue estoppel in the case.- Whether the petitioner is entitled to DEPB benefits as per Notification dated 5.6.2002.Interpretation of Export and Import Policy 2002-07 regarding DEPB entitlement for supplies from DTA to SEZ units:The petitioner, a Partnership firm engaged in export, sought quashing of orders denying Duty Entitlement Pass-Book (DEPB) entitlement for supplies from Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) to Special Economic Zone (SEZ) units. The Government's Export and Import Policy 2002-07, effective from 1.4.2002, aimed at promoting exports and providing benefits. The petitioner claimed DEPB benefits under Notification dated 5.6.2002. However, the Development Commissioner rejected the petitioner's application, stating DEPB benefits were applicable only from 1.4.2003 for supplies made to SEZ units. The petitioner argued that benefits should apply from the notification date itself, citing lack of clarity on the effective date in the notification. The court analyzed the policy objectives and notifications, concluding that benefits were intended for the new financial year starting from 1.4.2003. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that DEPB benefits were not applicable before 1.4.2003.Application of principle of issue estoppel in the case:The petitioner invoked the principle of issue estoppel, claiming reliance on the Notification dated 5.6.2002 and suffering losses due to the denial of benefits. The petitioner argued that the issuance of subsequent notifications should not negate accrued rights under the initial notification. Citing judgments from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Karnataka High Court, the petitioner sought relief. However, the court found that the principle of issue estoppel did not apply in this case. It differentiated the present situation from the cases cited by the petitioner, emphasizing the lack of similarity in circumstances. The court highlighted that the notifications clearly indicated the effective date for DEPB benefits, refuting the application of issue estoppel in favor of the petitioner.Whether the petitioner is entitled to DEPB benefits as per Notification dated 5.6.2002:The petitioner contended that DEPB benefits should be granted from the date of Notification dated 5.6.2002, without any specified effective date. The court examined the timeline of notifications and the intent behind the policy provisions. It noted that the subsequent notifications regarding DEPB procedures were issued with effect from 1.4.2003, indicating the commencement of benefits from that date. The court rejected the petitioner's argument, emphasizing that the benefits under the notification were aligned with the new financial year starting from 1.4.2003. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, ruling against the petitioner's claim for DEPB entitlement based on the Notification dated 5.6.2002.---
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
