Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Export promotion scheme misuse notifications upheld but retrospective application rejected by Supreme Court</h1> <h3>DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE AND ANOTHER Versus M/s. KANAK EXPORTS AND ANOTHER</h3> DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE AND ANOTHER Versus M/s. KANAK EXPORTS AND ANOTHER - 2015 (326) E.L.T. 26 (SC), 2016 (2) SCC 226, 2015 (12) JT 135, 2015 ... Issues Involved:1. Validity of Notifications and Public Notices amending the EXIM Policy.2. Jurisdiction of DGFT in issuing Public Notices.3. Retrospective effect of Notifications and Public Notices.4. Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel.5. Vested rights of exporters under the EXIM Policy.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Notifications and Public Notices Amending the EXIM Policy:The EXIM Policy 2002-2007 was amended by Notification No. 28 dated January 28, 2004, and Public Notice No. 40 of the same date. The amendments included Notes 1 to 5 to para 3.7.2.1 of the Policy. The primary contention was whether these amendments were clarificatory or constituted substantive changes. The court concluded that the amendments were clarificatory, aimed at preventing misuse of the scheme by exporters who were inflating their export performance through dubious means. The amendments were justified as they aligned with the original intent of the Policy to boost genuine export growth.2. Jurisdiction of DGFT in Issuing Public Notices:Public Notice No. 40 dated January 28, 2004, issued by the DGFT, sought to exclude certain export products from the incentive scheme. The court held that DGFT did not have the jurisdiction to amend the EXIM Policy, which is a statutory policy formulated under Section 5 of the Act. The power to amend the Policy rests solely with the Central Government. Consequently, the Public Notice was deemed ultra vires.3. Retrospective Effect of Notifications and Public Notices:The Notifications dated April 21 and 23, 2004, which sought to exclude certain products from the duty-free entitlement scheme, were challenged on the ground of retrospectivity. The court held that while the Government has the power to amend the Policy, such amendments cannot have retrospective effect unless explicitly provided by the statute. The court found that Section 5 of the Act did not confer any such power to make retrospective amendments. Therefore, the Notifications could not apply retrospectively to exports made before their issuance.4. Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel:Exporters argued that they had a legitimate expectation based on the original EXIM Policy and had altered their position accordingly. The court, however, held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel could not be invoked to prevent the Government from amending the Policy in public interest, especially to prevent misuse and fraud. The court emphasized that economic policies are subject to change, and the Government must be allowed to rectify policies to address public interest concerns.5. Vested Rights of Exporters Under the EXIM Policy:Exporters claimed that they had acquired vested rights to the benefits under the original Policy upon achieving the stipulated export targets. The court distinguished between existing rights and vested rights, holding that no vested right had accrued to the exporters as the benefits were contingent on compliance with the Policy as amended. The court noted that the amendments were necessary to prevent misuse and ensure that the benefits were granted only for genuine incremental growth in exports.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Notification dated January 28, 2004, as clarificatory. It declared the Public Notice dated January 28, 2004, issued by the DGFT, as ultra vires. The court held that the Notifications dated April 21 and 23, 2004, could not be applied retrospectively. The doctrine of promissory estoppel did not prevent the Government from amending the Policy in public interest. The court concluded that no vested rights had accrued to the exporters under the original Policy, as the amendments were necessary to prevent misuse and ensure genuine export growth.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found