DEBANGSU BASAK, J. - (1.) The petitioners have sought for a declaration that the notices dated March 15, 2014, April 17, 2014 and October 20, 2014 are null and void. They have also demanded payment of a sum of Rs.42,81,604/- from the respondents.
(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that, the first petitioner is an Export Oriented Unit (EOU). The first petitioner is carrying on manufacturing activity since 2006. It was receiving Central Sales Tax (CST) refund from the Development Commissioner, Falta, Special Economic Zone. The first petitioner is entitled to reimbursement in terms of the Foreign Trade Policy framed by the Director General of Foreign Trade, under the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India. It had received reimbursement up to the last quarter of 2010-2011. However, since the first quarter of 2011-2012, the authorities are rejecting the claim for refund of Central Sales Tax. The first petitioner has a claim of Rs.42,81,604/- in respect thereof.
(3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioners has referred to a show-cause notice dated March 5/7, 2014 issued under paragraph 6.11(C) of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP), 2009-2014. He has submitted that, the contention of the respondents is that, the first petitioner had purchased goods from Reliance Industries Limited and that, such vendor is a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) Unit and not a Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) Unit as per paragraph 9.21 of the FTP, 2009- 2014. According to the authorities, DTA and SEZ are two separate entities. Therefore, CST reimbursement made on purchases from a SEZ Unit is not available. The first petitioner had replied thereto. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that, DTA is not defined in the FTP under consideration. It is, however, defined in the Policy and Procedure of 2009-2014. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the Foreign Trade Policy for 2015-2020 and has submitted that, the authorities have now removed the anomalies and have included supplies out of SEZ Units for the purpose of reimbursement of CST. He has referred to an unreported judgment of the Madras High Court rendered on March 13, 2016 in W.P. No. 15646 of 2014 (M/s. Hospira Health Care Private Ltd. v. Development Commissioner and Ors.) and has submitted that, the same issue was answered in favour of the petitioner in such judgment. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to the reimbursement as claimed.;