TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Warehousing service operations cancellation under SEZ Act Section 16 challenged successfully due to inadequate legal justification</h1> <h3>M/s. Ows Warehouse Services LLP Versus Union Of India & Ors.</h3> The Gujarat HC disposed of a petition challenging cancellation of authorized warehousing service operations under Section 16 of the SEZ Act, 2005, and ... Cancellation of grant of authorised operations of warehousing service activities - Section 16 of the SEZ Act, 2005 - imposition of penalty under Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act, 1992 as made applicable by Rule 54(2) of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993 for violation of the SEZ Rules - HELD THAT:- Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 could not controvert the submissions of learned advocate for the petitioner by referring to any provision of the SEZ Act. The espondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 could not controvert the above submissions of learned advocate for the petitioner by referring to any provision of the SEZ Act. Petition disposed off. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether a Specified Officer under the SEZ Act can, on the basis of a communication from a Customs authority, temporarily suspend D.T.A. Clearance (Cargo Vehicle Movement) of a warehousing unit in an SEZ pending investigation, absent any specific provision of the SEZ Act authorizing such suspension. 2. Whether the impugned communication suspending D.T.A. clearance, issued without reference to statutory provisions or service of the underlying Customs communication to the warehouse operator, is liable to be quashed as ultra vires or procedurally unsustainable. 3. Whether the appropriate remedy in the circumstances is quashing of the temporary suspension and directing that adjudication proceed by way of statutory show-cause/penal process under the SEZ Act and allied statutes. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Authority of Specified Officer to suspend D.T.A. Clearance pending investigation Legal framework: The SEZ Act and Rules govern operations within SEZ units, including grant and cancellation of Letter of Approval and authorized operations; enforcement and penal consequences are dealt with by provisions of the SEZ Act and, where applicable, Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act and its Rules. Administrative actions affecting operations ordinarily require statutory sanction or be taken in accordance with prescribed procedures. Precedent Treatment: The Court did not cite or rely upon prior binding precedent; no contrary authority was furnished by respondents to demonstrate a statutory power in the Specified Officer to issue the impugned suspension. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted the impugned communication was issued by a Specified Officer from the SEZ authority purportedly on the basis of a Customs office letter alleging ineligible exemption claimed on the basis of a fake Certificate of Origin. The Court examined the record and observed absence of any reference in the impugned communication to specific provisions of the SEZ Act or Rules that would empower temporary suspension of D.T.A. clearances. The respondents were unable to point to any provision of the SEZ Act conferring such power on the Specified Officer. The Court emphasized that preventive administrative steps affecting lawful operations cannot be taken without legal backing and that enforcement should proceed through extant statutory mechanisms (e.g., show-cause, adjudication, penalties) rather than an ad hoc suspension not grounded in the statute. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where an administrative order suspends lawful operational permissions of an SEZ unit, such suspension must be supported by statutory authority; absent demonstration of such power, the order is ultra vires and liable to be quashed. Obiter - observations on prudential considerations (e.g., safeguarding revenue) are explanatory, not determinative of statutory authority. Conclusion: The impugned suspension lacked demonstrable statutory authority under the SEZ Act and therefore was unlawful; the Court quashed the suspension order dated 01.11.2023. Issue 2: Procedural sufficiency - failure to reference statutory provisions or furnish underlying communication to affected party Legal framework: Principles of natural justice and statutory procedural requirements mandate that actions adversely affecting rights or operations be taken with adequate notice and by reference to applicable legal provisions; show-cause and adjudication procedures under the SEZ Act/FT(DR)A provide the prescribed route for determination of violations and imposition of penalties. Precedent Treatment: No authorities were invoked by respondents to justify issuance of a suspension without citing provisions or serving the underlying documents on the affected warehouse operator; petitioner pointed to absence of receipt of the Customs communication and lack of reference to any legal provision in the impugned communication. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the impugned communication did not contain citation of Rules, Regulations, or statutory provisions, nor was a copy of the Customs communication placed on record as served to the petitioner. The Court highlighted that, when Customs had earlier cleared the goods subject to bank guarantee and queries, the petitioner had complied with processes; therefore, any allegation of ineligible exemption should have been pursued by preventing release at the time or by formal adjudicatory process rather than by retrospective, unexplained suspension. The absence of procedural basis and non-service of material amounted to arbitrariness and procedural unfairness. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - administrative communications that suspend operational permissions must record statutory basis and ensure affected parties receive underlying material; failure to do so renders such communications procedurally unsustainable. Obiter - factual comments on prior customs clearance and bank guarantee are explanatory to the Court's assessment of prejudice but ancillary to the legal principle. Conclusion: The impugned communication was procedurally deficient for lack of statutory reference and absence of proper service of the underlying Customs material; this supported setting aside the suspension. Issue 3: Appropriate remedy and subsequent course - quashing suspension vs. continuing adjudication Legal framework: Where administrative action is ultra vires or procedurally flawed, the judicial remedy is to quash such action while permitting statutory proceedings to continue in accordance with law; the SEZ Act and FT(DR)A prescribe mechanisms (show-cause notices, adjudication) for cancellation of approvals and imposition of penalties. Precedent Treatment: The Court proceeded on the established principle that an illicit or unsupported preventive measure may be stayed/quashed but does not preclude authorities from pursuing proper adjudicatory remedies. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court quashed the impugned suspension but left intact the ability of respondents to proceed with the adjudication of the already-issued show-cause notice dated 08.01.2024. The reasoning balanced protection of the petitioner's operational rights against the respondents' authority to investigate and prosecute alleged violations through prescribed statutory processes. The Court observed that respondents may continue with adjudication under law, thereby preserving the revenue interest while correcting the procedural defect of the interim suspension. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - quashing an ultra vires preventive administrative order does not preclude initiation or continuation of statutory adjudicatory proceedings; respondents must proceed in accordance with law. Obiter - the Court's comments on undue hardship caused by suspension are explanatory to justify interim relief previously granted. Conclusion: The correct remedy was to quash the impugned suspension of D.T.A. clearance and to permit the respondents to pursue adjudication of the show-cause notice in accordance with statutory procedure; petition disposed accordingly and notice discharged. Cross-references Issues 1 and 2 are interrelated: lack of statutory authority (Issue 1) and procedural deficiency (Issue 2) jointly established the ultra vires character of the impugned communication, leading to the remedial conclusion in Issue 3 that the suspension be quashed while preserving lawful adjudication.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
