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: (i) Whether the cancellation of the freely transferable import licence could be assailed for want of hearing and on the ground of the prohibition against issue of a duplicate licence; (ii) whether the petitioner was entitled to a fresh licence for the unexpired period of the lost licence.
Issue (i): Whether the cancellation of the freely transferable import licence could be assailed for want of hearing and on the ground of the prohibition against issue of a duplicate licence.
Analysis: The cancellation was not treated as an adverse unilateral action requiring an independent hearing because the petitioner had itself requested cancellation of the original licence upon its loss and had sought a fresh licence. In that situation, the challenge based on absence of hearing did not survive. As the licence stood cancelled at the petitioner's request, the question of issuing a duplicate licence also did not arise, making it unnecessary to decide the validity of the prohibition in Paragraph 21 of the Handbook of Procedure (1992-97).
Conclusion: The challenge to the cancellation and the complaint of denial of hearing failed, and no duplicate licence was required to be issued.
Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to a fresh licence for the unexpired period of the lost licence.
Analysis: The licence was admittedly freely transferable, had been lost without evidence of misuse, and the original validity period had expired during the pendency of the writ petition. In those circumstances, equity and justice supported grant of a fresh licence on the same terms and conditions as the original licence, for the balance period corresponding to the time remaining after loss.
Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to a fresh licence for nine months from the date of issue, on the same terms and conditions as the original licence.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent that the respondents were directed to issue a fresh import licence on application, while the challenge to cancellation and duplicate issuance did not succeed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the holder of a transferable licence itself seeks cancellation after loss of the licence, the cancellation cannot be attacked for want of hearing, and equitable relief may be granted by directing issuance of a fresh licence for the unexpired period if there is no shown misuse of the lost licence.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
