TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the appellants had a vested right to value based advance licences on the basis of the policy in force on the date of application. (ii) Whether the amendment to paragraph 66 of the Export and Import Policy operated retrospectively so as to preserve entitlement to value based licences. (iii) Whether delay in processing the applications and the time schedule in the Handbook of Procedure conferred an enforceable right to the claimed licences.
Issue (i): Whether the appellants had a vested right to value based advance licences on the basis of the policy in force on the date of application.
Analysis: The policy language governing advance licences was read in the setting of the scheme as a whole. The controlling principle applied was that entitlement to import or export licences depends upon the policy prevailing when the licence is issued, unless the applicable policy expressly creates a contrary accrued right. The Court found that the appellants' applications were pending when the policy changed and that no vested right had crystallised merely because the applications were filed earlier.
Conclusion: The appellants had no vested right to value based licences on the date of application.
Issue (ii): Whether the amendment to paragraph 66 of the Export and Import Policy operated retrospectively so as to preserve entitlement to value based licences.
Analysis: The Court compared the unamended and amended versions of paragraph 66 and held that the amended version was introduced prospectively on 8 February 1994. Since the policy had already moved away from value based licences by then, the later amendment could not revive or preserve a non-existent entitlement. The Court also held that the amended provision, properly understood, governed only the norms to be applied and did not alter the governing rule that licences would be issued under the policy in force at the time of issue.
Conclusion: The amendment did not operate retrospectively and did not support the appellants' claim.
Issue (iii): Whether delay in processing the applications and the time schedule in the Handbook of Procedure conferred an enforceable right to the claimed licences.
Analysis: The Court accepted the respondent's position that the alleged delay was attributable to deficiencies in the applications and held that no conclusive finding of departmental delay could be recorded. It further held that the time schedule in the Handbook was only directory and not mandatory, because no consequence for non-compliance was prescribed. Accordingly, delay could not be used to convert an inchoate application into a vested entitlement.
Conclusion: No enforceable right arose from the alleged delay or the handbook time schedule.
Final Conclusion: The claim to value based licences failed, and the policy in force on the date of grant governed the appellants' entitlement. The appeal was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: In matters of advance import or export licences, no vested right arises merely from filing an application; the governing policy is ordinarily the one in force on the date of grant, and a later prospective amendment cannot retrospectively revive an expired entitlement.
TaxTMI 
