TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 1217
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stitution of India, primarily seeking for a direction to the respondents to grant ex-post facto approval to the Foreign Direct Investment (hereinafter referred to as 'FDI') received by the petitioner from two foreign companies, namely, Aventia Global Limited and Onix Assets Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the foreign companies'). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a company engaged in international trade and distribution of chemicals/petrochemicals/polymers etc. On 26.12.2009, the petitioner allotted 4,00,000 warrants to the two foreign companies for a consideration of 50 crores and the said warrants were converted into equity shares on 27.03.2010. The petitioner received disbursals from the foreign comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2.02.2016. The third application of the petitioner also came to be rejected on 21.06.2016 on the ground that against the said order passed by the CIT(A), the respondent No.2-Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (hereinafter referred to as 'DPIIT') has preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'ITAT'). 6. The petitioner, thereafter, approached the Bombay High Court in W.P (C) 562/2016. The said writ petition was withdrawn with the liberty to approach the appropriate High Court. The petitioner thereafter filed W.P. (C) 1464/2017 before this court, which was disposed of in terms of an order dated 13.10.2017, which reads as under:- "1. Learned counsel appearing for the pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eferred to as 'SOP') dated 29.06.2017. The fourth application came to be rejected vide order dated 22.05.2018 with an observation that after due consideration, the request made by the petitioner is not accepted by the relevant Department/Ministries. 10. Since the order of rejection of the fourth application dated 22.05.2018 did not contain any reason, therefore, the petitioner had to approach this court in W.P.(C) 9069/2018, which came to be disposed of on 29.08.2018 recording an undertaking of DPIIT that the reasons for rejection will be communicated to the petitioner. 11. In terms of communication dated 17.09.2018, the reasons for the rejection of the fourth application were communicated to the petitioner, which reads as under:-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 20.12.2017, it is hereby communicated that the proposal was rejected by the Competent Authority considering that there is a sub-judice matter pending with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which has direct bearing on the proposal". 12. A perusal of the communication dated 17.09.2018 would reveal that the proposal of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that the matter is sub-judice with the ITAT, which according to DPIIT has a direct bearing on the proposal. 13. It be also noted that in terms of the order dated 10.01.2019, the ITAT upheld the order passed by CIT(A) and observed that the petitioner has proved three main ingredients under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, i.e. (i) identity of investors; (ii) creditwort....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore, submits that the rights of the petitioner are being greatly prejudiced and the petitioner has been made to suffer irreparable loss on account of the action of the respondent No.2-DPIIT. 15. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-UOI, while taking this court through the amended counter affidavit, submits that there is no objection with respect to the consideration of the case of the petitioner afresh. However, during the pendency of the instant petition, there has been a change in the mechanism to deal with such a request. While placing reliance on paragraph No. 1 of his preliminary submissions, he submits that if the petitioner applies to National Single Window System (hereinafter referred to as 'NSWS') in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....foresaid, this court finds it appropriate to direct the petitioner to file an application in terms of the consolidated FDI policy dated 15.10.2022, as amended from time to time through online portal, NSWS in terms of the guidelines and requirements under the FDI policy and SOP for processing the FDI proposal. 18. Needless to state that if such an application is filed by the petitioner within two weeks from today, the respondent authority is under an obligation to deal with the same, on its own merit. It is to be reiterated that the decision shall be taken without being influenced by any of the earlier rejection orders, as this court has clearly noted that none of the rejection orders deal with the application of the petitioner on merit. Le....