TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 1123
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned senior standing counsel for the fourth respondent. 2. This is the third round of litigation which the petitioner has initiated before this Court for virtually the same purpose. The issue, which falls for consideration in this writ petition lies in a narrow compass, that is to say as to whether the petitioner is required to pay a sum of Rs. 12,43,872/-, being the compensation fee for being entitled for extension of time to complete the export obligation in terms of the advance authorisation permission dated 04.07.2012. In terms of the said permission, the petitioner had time till 31.07.2014 to complete the export obligation as per the stipulation in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed, but an order was passed on 29.05.2017 placing the petitioner under the DEL. The petitioner requested for revocation of the said order vide representation dated 27.07.2017. Since the same was not considered, the petitioner filed W.P.Nos.21634 and 21636 of 2017, wherein the petitioner sought for removing their name from DEL and for seeking extension of time to comply with the export obligations in terms of Advance Authorisation dated 04.07.2012. The writ petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 16.08.2017 with a direction to consider the petitioner s representation dated 22.05.2017 seeking extension of time, examine the bonafides of the representations in accordance with the relevant regulations and pass a speaking order within ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion was granted for a period of six months from the date on which the time limit initially expired. Subsequently, another order was passed on 19.01.2018 withdrawing the interim reply dated 12.01.2018. In the said order also it is reiterated that the extension shall be granted for a period of six months from the date of expiry of the initial export obligation. These orders were put to challenge by the petitioner in W.P.Nos.2304 and 2305 of 2018. They were heard together and were disposed of by a common order dated 05.02.2018. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: "8.I do not agree with the submissions made by the learned Senior Standing Counsel to remand the matter to the second respondent to consider the eligibility....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner's business activities should not have been hampered and their names should not have been retained in the denied entity list. Therefore, the second respondent ought to have complied with the said direction and removed the petitioner's name from the denied entity list. Thus, when the same has not been done, the impugned order dated 16.11.2017 calls for interference. 12.For all the above reasons, W.P.Nos. 2304 and 2305 of 2018 are partly allowed and the impugned order dated 19.01.2018 is set aside in so far as it stipulates the period of extension for fulfilling the export obligation be calculated for a period of six months from 22.02.2014 and the same is set aside with a direction to the second respondent to grant the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the composition fee as early as on 08.10.2014, being a sum of Rs. 22,212/- and once again the very same amount was remitted by the petitioner on 20.12.2017. Therefore, at this juncture, directing the petitioner to remit composition fee till the period 30.09.2018 is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. This Court would have been well justified in presuming that the impugned order has been passed to circumvent the direction issued in W.P.No.113 of 2018 dated 05.02.2018. 9.Be that as it may, since the application for extension of time having not been rejected and order has been passed granting extension of time on 19.01.2018, which was interfered only with regard to the date of extension, now the respondent Department cannot go back o....