TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 777
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... HAL, 3rd Stage, Indiranagar, Bengaluru - 560 075. It is engaged in providing healthcare services at its hospital facilities to patients to patients in India and also to patients, who come to the petitioner's hospital for medical treatment in India from abroad. The petitioner being an eligible 'status holder' under the 'Served from India Scheme' (hereinafter referred to "SFIS") to avail benefits enumerated in the "Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-2009' of the Government of India, (hereinafter referred to as 'said policy') has filed an application on 22.03.2012 for issue of Duty Free Credit Entitlement Certificate (hereinafter for brevity "DFCEC") in respect of eligible transactions of the petitioner during the period between 01/04/2008 and 31/03/2009 along with relevant documents. In pursuance of the said application, as per Annexure - J the officer of respondent No.4 issued a deficiency letter dated 02.04.2013 to the petitioner stating that your firm is a chain of hospital in Asia, based in Kualalumpur, Malaysia and was founded in 1994 and not promoting the Indian Brand. Please clarify as to how the services not originating from India would be entitled for SFIS benefits? In pursuance o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioner is an Indian Company duly incorporated and validly functioning under the laws of the Republic of India. The actions of respondent No.4 in holding the petitioner as a foreign entity has the effect of applying the principles of 'lifting of corporate veil'. The position of law in India on such interpretation is very clear and states that the application of the principle of lifting of corporate veil can be used only in cases of prima facie fraud committed by any company or the stakeholders of a company. In the present matter, no issue pertaining to any fraud or criminal acts or intent whatsoever has been made out by the respondents as against the petitioner and hence the impugned order is bad in law. 6. He further contended that the impugned order is not a speaking order and fails to explain the basis in law for the change in stance of the respondents, from accepting the application for the issue of the said DFCECs (at Annexure - D1 and D2) and the declarations thereof in the first instance and the subsequent refusal to accept the legal standing of the petitioner as an Indian Company. Further it is contended that the intent of the said policy was to promote a 'served from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of any other country; (iv) Supply of a 'service' in India relating to exports paid in free foreign exchange or in Indian Rupees which are otherwise considered as having being paid for in free foreign exchange by RBI." 8. Admittedly, the petitioner has not come under the terms of the provisions of Para 9.53 of FTP, "Service Provider". Impugned Annexure-A issued by the fourth respondent is in accordance with law. Therefore, she sought to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, it is undisputed fact that the petitioner is an Indian Company, incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, which is engaged in providing healthcare services at its hospital to patients to patients in India and also to patients who come to the petitioner's hospital for medical treatment in India from abroad. It is the specific case of the petitioner that in pursuance to 'Served from India Scheme' to avail benefits enumerated in the "Foreign Trade Policy, 2004- 2009' of the Government of India has filed an application on 22.03.2012 for issue of Duty Free Credit Entitlement Certificate in respect of eligible transactions of the petitioner duri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me is given below: "a. At the outset, we insist on the fact that the "Objective" cannot be considered to be the deciding factor of eligibility or ineligibility of a particular Service. It is the "Eligibility" para specifically mentioned in the FTP which has to be considered. b. The eligibility in the current Foreign Trade Policy mentioned in Para 3.12.2 reads as: "Indian Service Providers, listed in Appendix 41 of HBPv1, who have free foreign exchange earning of at least Rs. 10 lacs in current financial year will be eligible for Duty Credit Scrip." c. Also, Para 3.6.1 of HBPv1 2009-14 specifically mentioning the Ineligible Remittances and Services for SFIS scheme does not include any mention of any particular brand being either eligible or ineligible. With reference to the same, we have also submitted the declaration in ANF 3B as well as in a separate letter. The declaration states that FEE from Services ineligible under Para 3.6.1 of HBPv1 2009-14 are not considered for the benefits under Served From India Scheme. d. In the context of the Indian Service Providers, we wish to submit the following self-certified documents to your office which clarifies and confirms that t....