Case Law Details
Ozone Properties Private Limited Vs Director, STPI (Karnataka High Court)
Petitioner admittedly made an application seeking for exit from EOU/STPI scheme and it was its specific case that it had not imported any capital goods or procured any capital goods in respect of project.
The clause relating to exit from the scheme does not entitle the authority to reject the application on the ground that the periodical performance report had not been furnished. In this case, the authority has in fact stated that the petitioner did furnish the IT park progress report as per its email dated 10.06.2009. The mere noncompliance of a procedural requirement cannot prevent the petitioner from exiting from the scheme.
However, learned Deputy Solicitor General vehemently contended that the petitioner ought not to be granted any discretion since the periodic performance reports were not furnished and this was an essential term of the licence. He also contended that as against the impugned order there was an appeal provided and therefore, without availing the appellate remedy, the present writ petition could not have been filed.
As already stated above, the furnishing of periodic status report did not result in any monetary benefit to the petitioner and it was only procedural requirement which it had to comply. If the petitioner had not taken any monetary benefit by virtue of the licence granted to it, its exit cannot be denied.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
