Full Text
W.P.rCl 522/2018 and CM No.2234/2018 HLS ASIA LIMITED & ANR Petitioners
Through: Mr Amit Gupta and Ms Vidhi Goel, Advocates.
Through: Mr Anurag Ahluwalia,CGSC with Ms Tejaswita,Advocate for UOI.
Through: Ms Malini Sud,Mr Vikas Mishra,Mr Shubhankar Sen Gupta and Mr
Shashwat Tripathi, Advocates.
Through: Mr Anurag Ahluwalia,CGSC with Ms Tejaswita and Mr Brajesh Kumar, Advocate for UOI.
LIMITED(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS EROS RESORTS AND HOTELS LIMITED) Petitioner
Shashwat Tripathi,Advocates.
Through: Counsel(appearance not given).
2018:DHC:8809 ABERCROMBLE & KENTINDIA PVT LTD Petitioner
Through: Mr Rishabh Jetley,Advocate.
Through: Mr Ravi Prakash, CGSC with Mr Farman Ali and Mr Brajesh Kumar,
Thi'ough: Mr Priyadarshi Manish, Ms Anjali J.
Manish and MsNidhi Saini,
Through: Mr Kirtiman Singh,CGSC for UOI.
AND
SANYA HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED Petitioner Shashwat Tripathi,Advocates.
Through: Mr RaviPrakash,CGSC with Mr Farman Ali and Mr Varun Pathak, Advocates for R-1 to 3.
14.11.2018
ORDER
1. The learned counsel appearing forthe respondents state thatthey have instructions that the respondents shall withdraw the recovery notices, impugned in these petitions,to await thejudgment ofthe Supreme Court in M/s Cummins Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union ofIndia and Ors.: SLP(C) No. 28830/2017. He states that the question whether the SFIS Scheme would apply to Indian companies selling their services under allegedly foreign brands, is a subject matter of consideration before the Supreme Court.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners state that apartfrom the aforesaid issue, there are other serious objections to recovery notices including that Policy Interpretation Committee (PIC) did not have any jurisdiction to take any policy decision prior to 2012. They further state that the recovery notices, impugned in these petitions, are barred by limitation and the respondents do not have any recourse to Section 16 ofthe Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. This Court does not consider it necessary to address these issues as all the contentions,including one as articulated by the learned counsel for the petitioners, would be available to the petitioners as and when any steps are taken by the respondents for recovering any amount, which is subject matter of disputes in the present petitions.
3. The withdrawal ofrecovery notices are without prejudice to rights and contentions ofthe respondents including the right to issue a fresh recovery notices, if any. It is made expressly clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on whether the respondents have any such right to issue the recovery notices.
4. Since the recovery notices are withdrawn,the present petitions do not survive and are disposed ofwith liberty to the petitioners to revive the same, ifthe occasion so arises. The pending application stands disposed of.
5. OvdQV dasti.
VIBHU BAKHRU,J NOVEMBER 14,2018 RK /