Court overturns denial of CST reimbursement under Foreign Trade Policy; invalidates recovery notice due to lack of jurisdiction and delay.

The court set aside the order-in-appeal dated 14.03.2018, allowing the petition challenging the denial of reimbursement of Central Sales Tax (CST) under the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-09. The court held that the handbook of procedures could not restrict the entitlement granted by the policy. Additionally, the court found the show-cause notice for CST recovery invalid due to lack of jurisdiction and unjustified delay in initiating proceedings, emphasizing that recovery actions after a prolonged period without explanation were impermissible.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order-in-appeal dated 14.03.2018.
2. Entitlement to reimbursement of Central Sales Tax (CST) under the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-09.
3. Jurisdiction and legality of the show-cause notice issued for recovery of CST.
4. Delay in initiation of proceedings for recovery of CST.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the order-in-appeal dated 14.03.2018:
The petitioners challenged the order-in-appeal dated 14.03.2018 passed by the Director General of Foreign Trade. The core of the challenge was based on the contention that the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-09 entitled the petitioners to reimbursement of CST on purchases made from Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) units without any distinction regarding the use of such goods for export or domestic clearance. The petitioners argued that the handbook of procedures could not override the substantive provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal, leading to the present petition.

2. Entitlement to reimbursement of CST under the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-09:
The Foreign Trade Policy 2004-09, particularly para 6.11(c), provided that EOUs were entitled to reimbursement of CST on goods manufactured in India. The policy did not differentiate between the use of such goods for export or domestic clearance. The respondents argued that the handbook of procedures restricted reimbursement only to goods used for production meant for export. However, the court held that the handbook of procedures could not curtail the substantive rights granted under the Foreign Trade Policy. The court relied on the precedent set by the case of Ashahi Songwon Colors Ltd. v. Union of India, which established that procedural guidelines could not override the policy's substantive provisions.

3. Jurisdiction and legality of the show-cause notice issued for recovery of CST:
The respondents issued a show-cause notice on 31.12.2015/04.01.2016 under section 9 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, demanding recovery of CST amounting to Rs. 3,68,25,760/-. The petitioners contended that the officer lacked jurisdiction to recover the amount and questioned the basis for the belief that the reimbursement was wrongly made. The court found that the procedural guidelines could not impose conditions that were not present in the Foreign Trade Policy itself, thus invalidating the basis for the show-cause notice.

4. Delay in initiation of proceedings for recovery of CST:
The petitioners highlighted the significant delay in the initiation of recovery proceedings. The reimbursements were made in 2007-08, but the show-cause notice was issued only in 2016. The court noted that there was no misrepresentation or misstatement by the petitioners that justified such a delayed action. Citing the case of Ashahi Songwon Colors Ltd., the court emphasized that recovery actions initiated after an unduly long period, without any explanation for the delay, were not permissible. The court found the delay to be unjustified and a ground for quashing the recovery proceedings.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the order-in-appeal dated 14.03.2018 and consequently, the original order did not survive. The petition was allowed, and the court reiterated that procedural guidelines could not override substantive rights granted under the Foreign Trade Policy. The significant delay in initiating recovery proceedings further invalidated the respondents' actions.

---