TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>High Court sets aside order canceling DTA sales permission, emphasizing natural justice principles.</h1> <h3>Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. & Anr. Versus The Union of India & Ors.</h3> The High Court held that the order cancelling and reducing permission for DTA sales lacked merit, violated natural justice principles, and was beyond the ... - Issues involved: Challenge to order cancelling and reducing DTA sale permission u/s 14 of the Constitution of India.Summary:1. The petitioners, a company engaged in textile manufacturing, challenged an order cancelling and reducing permission for DTA sales granted by Respondent no.2 for the years 1996-97, 1997-98, and 1999-2000. The petitioners contended that the order was passed without natural justice, lacked merit, and was based on a non-existent reason. 2. The petitioners argued that the order violated natural justice principles and fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. They claimed that Respondent no.2 did not have the authority to review the DTA sale permission granted. The Respondent contended that the order was appealable and that the power to review was reserved in the permission order itself. 3. The High Court held that the order adversely affected the petitioners and should have complied with natural justice principles. It emphasized that administrative powers must be exercised in accordance with natural justice. The Court noted three exceptions to exhausting alternate remedies, including when an order violates fundamental rights or natural justice. The Court found that Respondent no.2 did not have the statutory power to review the order, as the power was reserved for the Government, not the Respondent. 4. The Court cited legal precedents to establish that the power to review must be specifically conferred by statute and cannot be self-conferred by an authority. As Respondent no.2 did not have the legal authority to review the order, the High Court set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the petitioners. The petition was allowed, and no costs were awarded.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
