Target Plus Scheme validity and GST-linked exclusion upheld; courts will not enlarge fiscal concessions beyond prescribed terms.

The Target Plus Scheme's 24-month duty credit certificate validity was treated as a valid procedural prescription within the delegated Foreign Trade Policy framework, and not an unauthorised curtailment of the concession. The 2017 customs amendment was viewed as a post-GST alignment of the exemption notification, excluding IGST and GST compensation cess without taking away any vested right to use the scrip for those levies. The later issuance of duty credit scrips did not justify judicial extension of the scheme period, because equity cannot enlarge a fiscal concession beyond its prescribed terms; only administrative consideration under the policy relaxation mechanism remained available.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the 24-month validity period for duty credit certificates under the Target Plus Scheme was without jurisdiction and illegal. (ii) Whether the 2017 customs amendment limiting the certificate's use to specified customs duties, and excluding IGST and GST compensation cess, took away any vested right of the petitioner. (iii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to extension of time because of the delay in issuance of the duty credit scrips.

Issue (i): Whether the 24-month validity period for duty credit certificates under the Target Plus Scheme was without jurisdiction and illegal.

Analysis: The Foreign Trade Policy authorized the Director General of Foreign Trade to prescribe procedures in the Handbook of Procedures and also contemplated that licences and certificates would remain valid for the period specified in them. The Target Plus Scheme itself was embedded in the policy, and the Handbook of Procedures was treated as a supplementary procedural instrument. The validity period of 24 months was prescribed in the Handbook from the inception of the scheme, and the scheme was consistently operated on that basis. In the circumstances, the prescription of a validity period was treated as falling within the delegated procedural framework and not as an unauthorised curtailment of the scheme.

Conclusion: The 24-month validity period was held to be valid and within jurisdiction, against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the 2017 customs amendment limiting the certificate's use to specified customs duties, and excluding IGST and GST compensation cess, took away any vested right of the petitioner.

Analysis: The amendment only aligned the exemption notification with the post-GST structure of the Customs Tariff Act. The newly inserted levies under sections 3(7) and 3(9) were treated as distinct levies and not as the same additional duties that were originally covered by the Target Plus Scheme exemption. The amendment was therefore viewed as clarificatory and as preserving, rather than removing, the exemption as it originally stood. No vested right to adjust the certificate against IGST or GST compensation cess was recognized.

Conclusion: The challenge to the 2017 amendment failed, and no vested right was found to have been taken away.

Issue (iii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to extension of time because of the delay in issuance of the duty credit scrips.

Analysis: The Court held that the certificate period runs from the date of issue, and the later issuance did not by itself create a right to extend the scheme period by another 15 years. In fiscal and concessionary schemes, equitable considerations cannot be used to rewrite the scheme or enlarge the benefit beyond the prescribed terms. The petitioner's grievance could be placed before the Policy Relaxation Committee, but that possibility did not justify judicial extension of the validity period.

Conclusion: No judicial extension of time was granted; the claim for a 15-year extension was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions challenging the validity period and the GST-related exclusion failed, and the prayer for extension of the duty credit period was declined, leaving only administrative consideration under the policy relaxation mechanism open.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal concession is created and regulated through a policy and its procedural handbook, the prescribed validity and conditions of use are enforceable if they are within the delegated framework, and a court will not enlarge the concession beyond the scheme by invoking equity or alleged delay.

---