Retrospective policy clarification cannot reopen concluded export refund claims, and writ jurisdiction may still be invoked against such notices.

A later administrative clarification cannot be used to reopen concluded deemed export and refund claims already sanctioned under an earlier policy, unless the policy expressly permits such retrospective operation. Show cause notices founded solely on the 15 March 2011 clarification to recover benefits granted earlier were therefore unsustainable. The availability of an alternate remedy was not treated as an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, because the challenge was directed to notices based entirely on the later clarification and relegation to the adjudicating authority would serve no useful purpose. The writ petitions were held maintainable and the impugned notices were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions were not maintainable on the ground of availability of an alternate remedy. (ii) Whether the Policy Interpretation Committee's clarification dated 15 March 2011 could be applied to concluded deemed export claims and refund cases arising prior to that date.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions were not maintainable on the ground of availability of an alternate remedy.

Analysis: The availability of an alternate remedy is a rule of prudence and not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction. The challenge was directed to show cause notices founded entirely on a later policy clarification, and the petitions had remained pending for a substantial period. In the circumstances, relegating the petitioners to the adjudicating authority would not have served any useful purpose.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were maintainable and the preliminary objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the Policy Interpretation Committee's clarification dated 15 March 2011 could be applied to concluded deemed export claims and refund cases arising prior to that date.

Analysis: The show cause notices were based on the 15 March 2011 clarification and sought to reopen benefits that had already been sanctioned and disbursed under the earlier policy position. A subsequent clarification cannot override the earlier policy so as to unsettle concluded cases unless the policy itself so permits. The Department's attempt to rely on the later interpretation to recover amounts already granted was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The 15 March 2011 clarification could not be applied retrospectively to the petitioners' concluded cases, and the show cause notices were liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded, the impugned show cause notices were set aside, and the authorities were directed to process pending claims in accordance with the policy as it stood prior to 15 March 2011.

Ratio Decidendi: A later administrative clarification cannot be used to reopen or recover benefits already granted under an earlier policy for concluded cases, and the writ court may intervene notwithstanding an alternate remedy where the challenge is to notices founded entirely on such later clarification.

---