TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to MEIS benefits despite the failure to tick the online "YES" option in the shipping bills, where the shipping bills recorded the intention to claim the reward in words and the petitioner submitted the details pursuant to Trade Notice No. 24/2018.
Analysis: The petition was under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions to consider and accept the petitioner's claim for MEIS benefits. The entitlement arose from exports made under the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 and the MEIS framework. The shipping bills contained a clear written declaration that the petitioner would claim the reward under MEIS, and the omission to click "YES" was only a technical lapse in the EDI system. Trade Notice No. 24/2018 was issued to address cases where exporters had inadvertently marked "N" instead of "Y" despite declaring the intent in the shipping bills. The petitioner responded within a short time and the case was found to be materially similar to an earlier decision of the Court, in which such procedural defect was held not to defeat the substantive benefit.
Conclusion: The petitioner's entitlement to MEIS could not be denied on account of the technical omission in the electronic filing process, and the respondents were required to grant the benefit.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the petitioner obtained the relief sought for MEIS benefit.
Ratio Decidendi: A substantive export incentive cannot be defeated by a procedural or technical defect in online filing where the exporter's intent to claim the benefit is ly recorded and the claim otherwise falls within the scheme.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
