Case Details: Khivraj Tech Park Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India (2025) 31 Centax 401 (Mad.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- K.R. Shriram, CJ. & Mohammed Shaffiq, J.
- Ms Radhika Chandra Sekhar, for the Appellant.
- S/Shri G. Ilangovan, SPL. Panel Counsel for K.S. Ramaswamy, Senior STDG. Counsel for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellant had imported Telematic Infrastructural Equipment for use in software exports under the Software Technology Park (STP) 100% Export Oriented Scheme and filed a Bill of Entry claiming exemption under Notification No. 153/93-Cus., dated 13-08-1993. Prior to the import, the appellant applied to the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) for approval to set up the STP unit. Subsequently, the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology informed the appellant that the Inter-Ministerial Standing Committee had approved the proposal for setting up the STP unit and the corresponding import of capital goods, subject to CMDA approval. CMDA granted the requisite approval, but only after the import had taken place. The jurisdictional officer under CGST denied the exemption solely on the ground that CMDA’s approval was received post-import. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court of Madras.
High Court Held
The High Court of Madras held that ex-post facto CMDA approval was adequate compliance as the Communication Technology Ministry letter did not require prior CMDA approval to obtain exemption, and only indicated that the importer could proceed with the import but must also secure CMDA approval before availing the Scheme benefit. It was further held that the delay of more than ten months in CMDA approval could not be a ground to deny the exemption benefit, as it was attributable to inter-departmental issues and CMDA, and not to the importer. As Notification No. 153/93-Cus., dated 13-08-1993 was intended to encourage export and earn foreign exchange, the Revenue should ensure that its construction promotes that objective and not rely on technicalities to frustrate it. The importer had substantially complied with the requirements and conditions of the Notification, and therefore, denial of the exemption benefit was not sustainable.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Khivraj Tech Park Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — W.P. No. 21623 of 2019, decided on 24-7-2019 by Madras High Court — Reversed [Para 3]
List of Cases Cited
- Commissioner of Income Tax v. Punjab Stainless Steel Industries — 2014 (307) E.L.T. 214 (S.C.) — Followed [Para 7.6]
- Commissioner v. Dilip Kumar and Company — 2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) — Followed [Para 7.7]
- Commissioner v. Tullow India Operations Ltd. — 2005 (189) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) — Followed [Para 7.3]
- LIC v. Escorts Ltd. — (1986) 1 SCC 264 — Followed [Para 7.2]
- Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner — 1991 (55) E.L.T. 437 (S.C.) — Followed [Para 7.4]
- O.N.G.C. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2006 (201) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) — Followed [Para 7.4]
- Sandoz (P) Ltd. v. Union of India — 2022 (379) E.L.T. 279 (S.C.) — Followed [Para 7.6]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 153/93-Cus., dated 13-8-1993 [Paras 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.6, 5, 6, 6.1, 7, 7.3, 7.6, 7.7]
