Ranya International vs. Commissioner Of Customs And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Ranya International, filed a writ petition seeking direction for respondent No.1 (Commissioner of Customs) to upload its shipping bills on the portal to enable the petitioner to claim export credits. The petitioner disputed the respondent's claim that the bills had been uploaded, stating that respondent No.2 (Additional Director General, Directorate of Foreign Trade) had not received them. Subsequent hearings revealed that while some bills without a fixed last date were uploaded, those with a last date of 31.01.2022 were not visible to respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 then stated that the bills were not reflecting because the petitioner's CGST had been suspended, and they would become visible once CGST was permitted. The petitioner apprehended that until the bills were visible, they could not apply for benefits like ROSCTL.
Held
The Court acknowledged the petitioner's apprehension that they were prevented from applying for export benefits due to the non-visibility of their shipping bills. The Court noted that the issue of whether the bills were actually uploaded and visible was contested, with respondent No.1 attributing the non-reflection to the suspension of the petitioner's CGST. Since the petitioner was unable to move the necessary application for benefits like ROSCTL due to this situation, the Court directed that if the petitioner is ultimately found entitled to these benefits, respondent No.2 shall release them without the petitioner having to file a separate application. The Court did not decide on the underlying merits of the petitioner's entitlement to the benefits themselves, nor did it delve into the reasons for the CGST suspension or the exact status of the shipping bill uploads.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to have its shipping bills uploaded on the portal to claim export credits, considering the dispute regarding their visibility and the suspension of the petitioner's CGST. (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the procedural requirements for claiming export benefits). Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that the shipping bills were not visible to respondent No.2, preventing them from applying for crucial export benefits like ROSCTL. They relied on the communication from respondent No.2 indicating non-receipt of the bills. Revenue/State (Respondents): Respondent No.1 initially claimed the bills were uploaded but later stated they were not reflecting due to the suspension of the petitioner's CGST. Respondent No.2 confirmed non-receipt of the bills. The respondents did not explicitly cite any specific provisions or precedents, but their arguments centered on the technical and procedural hurdles presented by the CGST suspension.
Sections Cited
CGST
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
CWP-26610-2021 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-26610-2021 Date of decision: 14.01.2022 Ranya International .... Petitioner Versus Commissioner of Customs and another .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Mukul Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anshuman Chopra, Advocate for respondent No.
Mr. Sudhir Nar, Senior Panel Counsel for respondent No.2. (Through Video Conferencing) *****
AJAY TEWARI, J (ORAL) By this petition, the petitioner had prayed that respondent No.1 upload its shipping bill on the portal so that he can get various export credits which it was entitled to.
On 06.01.2022, the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for respondent No.1, Mr. Anshuman Chopra, Advocate, informs the Court that the prayer, as made in the writ petition, has been rendered infructuous as the shipping bills of the petitioner, as sought to be uploaded, have already been so done, which fact is disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner by asserting that he has been informed by the Additional Director General, DINESH KUMAR 2022.01.20 14:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-26610-2021 2 Directorate of Foreign Trade, Green Field, Ludhiana, Punjab-respondent No.2, that they have not received the shipping bills till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner to send the concerned communication to learned counsel for respondent No.1, who shall thereafter get instructions. Mr. Sudhir Nar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 also prays for some time to seek instructions. List for consideration on 10.01.2022.”
Thereafter, on 10.01.2022, the following order was passed:- “Mr. Mukul Singla, Advocate states that even today, the same position is prevailing. Those bills for which no last date has been yet fixed/notified, have been uploaded, but those bills for which last date is 31.01.2022 are not available with respondent No.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that the discrepancy is at the end of respondent No.1 because if respondent No.1 had uploaded the bills (as asserted even on the last date), then it would have reflected on the system. Mr. Anshuman Chopra, Advocate seeks one more opportunity. List on 13.01.2022.”
Today, Mr. Chopra, Advocate for respondent No.1 has stated that as a matter of fact, the bills are not reflecting on the portal because the petitioner's CGST has been suspended and if and when the CGST of the petitioner is permitted, the bills would automatically be visible both to the petitioner and respondent No.
DINESH KUMAR 2022.01.20 14:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-26610-2021 3
The apprehension of learned counsel for the petitioner is that till the bills are uploaded and visible, he cannot make an application for the various benefits, i.e. ROSCTL which accrue to him.
In the circumstances, since the petitioner is prevented from moving the necessary application, it is directed that in case ultimately the petitioner is found entitled to the benefits, respondent No.2 shall release the same without the petitioner having to move an application.
Petition stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE (PANKAJ JAIN)
JUDGE 14.01.2022 Dinesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No DINESH KUMAR 2022.01.20 14:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.