Challenged "Denied Entity List" placement in Supreme Court raises concerns on law provision impact

The writ applicants challenged their placement in the "Denied Entity List" hindering their import activities. The case, rooted in a High Court judgment, is now before the Supreme Court. The respondent indicated a stay by the Supreme Court on the High Court's decision, with a final hearing pending. The impact of a law provision being declared ultra vires on the challenged judgment was discussed. Concerns were raised about the lack of a show cause notice for recovery. The Court scheduled further proceedings post the Supreme Court's hearing and explored the possibility of issuing a provisional license as an interim measure.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to being placed in the "Denied Entity List"
2. Status of judgment challenged before the Supreme Court
3. Effect of declaration of a provision as ultra vires on pending judgments
4. Absence of show cause notice for recovery
5. Possibility of issuing a provisional license

Analysis:
1. The writ applicants contested their placement in the "Denied Entity List," preventing them from importing raw materials for manufacturing goods in India for export. The foundation of their case lies in a previous judgment by the High Court, which is now under challenge before the Supreme Court.

2. The respondent, represented by Mr. Vyas, highlighted that the Supreme Court had stayed the operation of the High Court's judgment in a related matter. The case is scheduled for a final hearing on 13.04.2022, indicating a pending resolution at the higher court level.

3. Mr. Dave, for the petitioners, referred to a prior order by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court, emphasizing that a declaration of a law provision as ultra vires does not diminish the validity of the judgment under challenge before the Supreme Court.

4. Another contention raised was the absence of a show cause notice during the relevant period for the recovery of any specific amount from the writ applicants, suggesting a potential procedural flaw in the actions taken against them.

5. Looking ahead, the Court scheduled the matter for further consideration post the Supreme Court's hearing on 13.04.2022. Additionally, the Court requested the respondent to ascertain if a provisional license could be issued with suitable terms to safeguard revenue interests, indicating a potential interim solution to address the petitioner's concerns.

---