TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the customs authorities could refuse the telegraphic release advice and thereby deny the benefit of a duly granted DEPB licence; (ii) whether the petitioner was entitled to monetary compensation and interest for the loss caused by such refusal after the licence had expired.
Issue (i): Whether the customs authorities could refuse the telegraphic release advice and thereby deny the benefit of a duly granted DEPB licence.
Analysis: The licensing authority had already granted the DEPB licence and the customs authorities had themselves examined the matter and reduced the duty entitlement. On those facts, the refusal to issue the telegraphic release advice was not a mere clarification but operated as a revocation of the licence benefit. Any such adverse action had to be taken by a lawful procedure and within a reasonable time. The refusal was not supported by any proper proceeding and was therefore wrongful.
Conclusion: The refusal to issue the telegraphic release advice was illegal and could not be sustained.
Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to monetary compensation and interest for the loss caused by such refusal after the licence had expired.
Analysis: Although the licence had expired and could not be revalidated, the petitioner had been prevented from utilising a licence of definite monetary value because of the wrongful conduct of the customs authorities. Since restoration of the licence benefit was no longer possible, compensation for the value of the lost licence was warranted. Interest was also awarded, with exclusion of the period of delay in approaching the Court.
Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to compensation of Rs. 9,47,615/- with simple interest at 10% per annum, subject to exclusion of the specified period of delay.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the customs action was held wrongful, and monetary relief was granted in place of the unusable licence benefit.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory benefit has been duly granted and the authorities seek to deny its enjoyment without following lawful procedure, the denial is invalid and compensation may be awarded if the benefit can no longer be restored.
TaxTMI 
