TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 287
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h leads to Exts.P10 and P11. The petitioner is the co-developer in the Infopark Special Economic Zone (SEZ) under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India. The 4th respondent is a tenant of the petitioner. The 4th respondent entered into a lease agreement with the petitioner for an area approximately 8,289 square feet for running their SEZ Unit. They were engaged in information technology services and the Letter of Approval (LOA) was given by the authority concerned in 2008. Ext.P1 is the lease agreement. There was some dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent in connection with the lease, which leads to the rent control proceedings, which ultimately culminated in fixing rent as sought by the petitioner, that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he fourth respondent from further carrying out their activities inside any Special Economic Zone since it is a case of exit which means that there is complete divesting of activity from any Special Economic Zone in the interest of justice." 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent. I also heard the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contentions in the writ petition. The learned counsel submitted that the prayer of the 4th respondent is not for an exit order and they are trying to shift their unit to another place. The leaned counsel takes me through Rule 74 of the SEZ Rules, 2006, which deals abo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the SEZ scheme under Rule 74 of SEZ Rules, 2006. He also submitted that, as per the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 (SEZ Act, 2005) and Rules, 2006, if an application is filed for exit order as per Rule 74 of the SEZ Rules, 2006 the developer/co-developer has no role in it. The learned counsel submitted that this is clear from various provisions under the SEZ Act, 2005 and SEZ Rules, 2006. The learned counsel takes me through Ext.P10 order and submitted that there is nothing to interfere with the order passed by the 3rd respondent. The learned counsel submitted that the 4th respondent started the SEZ Unit at Infopark Special Economic Zone in 2008 and the LOA is Ext.R4(a). The learned counsel also takes me through Ext.R4(b), which is LOA fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d documents in the writ petition along with the counter affidavit/statement. 7. The 4th respondent - M/s. Zerone Consulting Private Limited, is a Unit inside the Infopark SEZ, Kakkanad engaged in IT services with LOA given in 2008. Ext.R4(a) is the LOA. The 4th respondent approached the office of the Development Commissioner with an application for exit order from the SEZ scheme under Rule 74 of the SEZ Rules, 2006. The same was considered by the 3rd respondent and passed Exts.P10 and P11 orders. Exts.P10 and P11 orders are passed in an application filed under Rule 74 of the SEZ Rules, 2006. It will be better to extract Rule 74 of SEZ Rules, 2006. "RULE 74. Exit of Units.-(1) The Unit may opt out of Special Economic Zone with the approva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent at a price to be determined by that agency. (4) Development Commissioner may permit a Unit, as one time option, to exit from Special Economic Zone on payment of duty on capital goods under the prevailing Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme under the Foreign Trade Policy subject to the Unit satisfying the eligibility criteria under that Scheme. (5) Depreciation norms for capital goods shall be as given in sub-rule (1) of rule 49." 8. A reading of the above provision will show that a Unit may opt out of Special Economic Zone with the approval of the Development Commissioner and such exit shall be subject to payment of applicable duties on the imported or indigenous capital goods, raw materials, components, consumables, spares and f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the 3rd respondent in detail and found that the contentions of the 4th respondent is genuine and exit order is passed as evident by Exts.P10 and P11. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Ext.P9 communication from the Under Secretary to Government of India to all Development Commissioners, in which it is stated that if the proposal is for shifting/relocation/ transfer of SEZ units from one SEZ to another SEZ, "No Due Certificate" from the existing developer/co-developer is necessary and also the consent letter/offer of space from the developer/co-developer where unit wants to shift is also necessary. According to me, Ext.P9 is not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. The 4th respondent is having two....