Just a moment...

Top
Help
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 12% off sitewide! →✨ Enterprise Access - Extra Savings! Contact: 9911796707 →
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        -

        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>Court Upholds Export Policy Amendments; EOUs Excluded from Export Value Retrospectively; Estoppel Claims Rejected.</h1> <h3>Rajesh Exports Limited Versus Union of India (UOI) and Ors</h3> The court dismissed the writ petitions, affirming the validity of the notifications and amendments to the Export and Import Policy (2002-2007). It held ... - Issues Involved:1. Applicability of the Export and Import Policy (2002-2007) to 100% Export Oriented Units (EOUs).2. Validity of retrospective amendments to the policy.3. Application of the doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation.4. Authority of the Central Government to amend the policy in public interest.Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of the Export and Import Policy (2002-2007) to 100% Export Oriented Units (EOUs):The petitioner, a company engaged in the manufacture and export of gold jewellery, contended that as a recognized status holder under the Export Import Policy (2002-2007), it was entitled to the benefits mentioned therein, specifically under para 3.7.2.1(vi) of the policy and para 3.2.5 of the Handbook of Procedures. The petitioner argued that the exclusion of export turnover of units operating under the EOU scheme from the calculation of export value was contrary to the policy. However, the court held that the original policy, when properly construed, did not intend to include exports made by EOUs for further duty-free entitlements. The notification dated 28-1-2004 clarified that exports made by EOUs would not be considered in calculating the total value of exports, as EOUs were already entitled to 100% duty-free imports under Chapter VI of the policy.2. Validity of Retrospective Amendments to the Policy:The petitioner challenged the retrospective application of the notification excluding EOUs from the calculation of export value. The court noted that clarifications to a policy are inherently retrospective as they elucidate the original intent of the policy. The court found that the notification dated 28-1-2004 was a clarification rather than an amendment and thus applied retrospectively to the original date of the policy. The court dismissed the challenge to the retrospective application, stating that the clarification did not alter the structure of the original policy.3. Application of the Doctrines of Promissory Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation:The petitioner argued that it had altered its position based on the policy and thus the doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation should apply. The court held that the doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation do not apply when the government is empowered to amend the policy in public interest. The court emphasized that these doctrines cannot be invoked in the abstract and must be supported by clear, sound, and positive foundation. Mere assertions without supporting material were insufficient to invoke these doctrines. The court found no evidence of the petitioner altering its position to its detriment based on the policy.4. Authority of the Central Government to Amend the Policy in Public Interest:The court affirmed the Central Government's authority to amend the policy in public interest under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The policy itself reserved the right for the government to make amendments in public interest. The court noted that economic policies are subject to change based on the exigencies of the situation and the necessity. The court found that the amendments were made in public interest to prevent misuse of the scheme and thus were valid.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the validity of the notifications and amendments to the Export and Import Policy (2002-2007). The court found that the clarifications and amendments were made in public interest and within the authority of the Central Government. The doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation were not applicable in this case due to the lack of supporting evidence and the government's power to amend the policy.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found