{"id":112755,"date":"2010-02-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/messrs-vs-government-on-18-february-2010"},"modified":"2018-07-12T05:36:51","modified_gmt":"2018-07-12T00:06:51","slug":"messrs-vs-government-on-18-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/messrs-vs-government-on-18-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Messrs vs Government on 18 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Messrs vs Government on 18 February, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K.A.Puj,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice H.Shukla,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/10724\/2009\t 2\/ 22\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 10724 of 2009\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nMESSRS\nSHREE BALAJI YARN TRADERS PVT LTD &amp; 1 - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nGOVERNMENT\nOF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY &amp; 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nPARESH M DAVE for\nPetitioner(s) : 1 - 2. \nMR PS CHAMPANERI for Respondent(s) : 1 -\n3. \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 18\/02\/2010  \n \nORAL JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)<\/p>\n<p>\tRule. Mr.P. S.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tChampaneri, learned Assistant Solicitor General, waives service of<br \/>\n\trule.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpetitioners have filed this petition under Article-226 of the<br \/>\n\tConstitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside<br \/>\n\torder-in-appeal dated 25\/28.5.2009 passed by the Additional Director<br \/>\n\tGeneral of Foreign Trade (DGFT), New Delhi and order-in-original<br \/>\n\tdated 6.5.2008 passed by the Joint DGFT, Baroda with consequential<br \/>\n\tdeclaration and relief that no penalty was liable to be imposed on<br \/>\n\tthe petitioners as regards Value Based Advance License<br \/>\n\tNo.P\/L\/3499501 dated 6.1.1995.  The petitioners have also prayed for<br \/>\n\tdirection restraining the respondents from taking any action against<br \/>\n\tthe petitioners including recovery of any amount as penalty, in<br \/>\n\trespect of exports made under Value Based Advance License<br \/>\n\tNo.P\/L\/3499501 dated 6.1.1995.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThis Court has issued<br \/>\n\tnotice on 7.10.2009. Pursuant to the notice learned Assistant<br \/>\n\tSolicitor General Mr.P. S. Champaneri appeared and placed on record<br \/>\n\tthe affidavit-in-reply filed by the Joint DGFT. Pursuant to the<br \/>\n\torder passed by this Court on 11.2.2010, letter dated 5.5.2006<br \/>\n\tissued by the Jt. DGFT on the petitioner was also produced on<br \/>\n\trecord.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt is the case of the<br \/>\n\tpetitioners that the petitioner Company has been dealing in textile<br \/>\n\tproduces, and the business of the petitioner also involved import<br \/>\n\tand export of the textile goods. A  Value Based Advance License was<br \/>\n\tgranted to the petitioner company by the office of the Joint DGFT,<br \/>\n\tBaroda for allowing imports of materials valued at Rs.81,71,450\/-<br \/>\n\tfor exporting textile goods of value of Rs.1,92,07,640\/- as export<br \/>\n\tobligation. The petitioners exported the specified textile products<br \/>\n\tof the required quantity as stipulated in the above license but the<br \/>\n\tvalue of exported goods was 86.64% of the goods required to be<br \/>\n\texported under the above license, and thus, the export obligation<br \/>\n\twas fulfilled in terms of quantity but not in terms of value.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe Joint DGFT, Baroda<br \/>\n\tsuggested to the petitioner vide letter dated 5.5.2006 to regularize<br \/>\n\tthe above transaction by getting value based license converted into<br \/>\n\tquantity based license and by paying the duty with interest as<br \/>\n\tregards the shortfall in value of the exported goods. Since there<br \/>\n\twas no regularization of the above transaction, a show cause notice<br \/>\n\tproposing to impose fiscal penalty on the petitioner was issued. The<br \/>\n\tJoint DGFT, Baroda passed an order-in-original imposing fiscal<br \/>\n\tpenalty of Rs.21,13,200\/- on the petitioner company as well as the<br \/>\n\tDirectors.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tbeing aggrieved by the<br \/>\n\tsaid order the petitioners filed an Appeal with a stay application<br \/>\n\tbefore the Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi.  During the<br \/>\n\thearing of the case before the Additional DGFT on 17.3.2009, the<br \/>\n\tpetitioners&#8217; advocate indicated that the petitioners were ready and<br \/>\n\twilling to pay the amount of duty and interest for regularization of<br \/>\n\tthe license. The Additional DGFT, therefore, adjourned the hearing<br \/>\n\tto 2.4.2009 so that the petitioners could make the payment in the<br \/>\n\tmeanwhile and come for hearing with payment particulars.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe petitioners&#8217;<br \/>\n\tadvocate, thereafter, sent a letter on 19.3.2009 to the Additional<br \/>\n\tDGFT informing him that the office of the Joint DGFT, Baroda was<br \/>\n\tapproached immediately after the hearing for details of duty and<br \/>\n\tinterest, but without any direction in writing from the Additional<br \/>\n\tDGFT, Baroda office was not giving any details to the petitioners.<br \/>\n\tThe petitioners&#8217; advocate sent a letter on 24.3.2009 to the<br \/>\n\tAdditional DGFT requesting him to direct in writing to the Joint<br \/>\n\tDGFT, Baroda to quantify amounts of duty and interest and give<br \/>\n\tinformation to the petitioners for depositing the same, and also to<br \/>\n\tadjourn the hearing fixed on 2.4.2009. The petitioners&#8217; advocate<br \/>\n\tsent another letter to the Additional DGFT on 2.4.2009 referring to<br \/>\n\tthe above difficulty and requesting him to adjourn the hearing and<br \/>\n\tto intimate the new date for this case. There has been no response<br \/>\n\tat all from the office of the Joint DGFT, Baroda to any of the above<br \/>\n\tletters and also not to the personal visits and request made by the<br \/>\n\tpetitioners&#8217; representatives to the officers at Joint DGFT, Baroda<br \/>\n\tin this regard.  The Additional DGFT, New Delhi passed an<br \/>\n\torder-in-appeal on 25\/28.5.2009 dismissing the appeal for the reason<br \/>\n\tthat no intimation regarding payment of duty and interest was<br \/>\n\treceived from the petitioner company and hence original order was<br \/>\n\tnot to be interfered with.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt is this order which is<br \/>\n\tunder challenge in the present petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr. P. M. Dave, learned<br \/>\n\tadvocate appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that the<br \/>\n\tpetitioners have been ready and willing to pay the amount of duty<br \/>\n\tsaved with interest for regularizing the case but the respondent<br \/>\n\tauthorities have not informed the petitioners about the amounts<br \/>\n\tpayable for this purpose despite several requests and applications<br \/>\n\tmade by the petitioners in this regard and, therefore, the action of<br \/>\n\tdismissing petitioners&#8217; appeal only on the ground that the required<br \/>\n\tamounts were not paid by the petitioners is unreasonable and<br \/>\n\tincorrect in the facts of this case. He has further submitted that<br \/>\n\tthe petitioners have not been in a position to arrive at the figure<br \/>\n\tof duty saved and interest in this case because it has been the<br \/>\n\tpetitioners&#8217; submission that there has not been any saving of duty<br \/>\n\tby the petitioner company as regards the imports made under the<br \/>\n\tadvance license and, therefore, it is incumbent upon the respondent<br \/>\n\tauthorities to calculate the amount of duty saved in view of their<br \/>\n\town understanding of the case and, therefore, the petitioners have<br \/>\n\tnot been in a position to deposit any amount on their own in the<br \/>\n\tpeculiar circumstances of this case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr.Dave further submitted<br \/>\n\tthat even otherwise, there is no liability of whatsoever nature on<br \/>\n\tthe petitioners in law as regards imports and exports made qua the<br \/>\n\tadvance license in question because the export obligation in terms<br \/>\n\tof quantity was totally fulfilled for this license and accordingly<br \/>\n\tno penalty could be imposed on the importer as provided under the<br \/>\n\tExim Policy itself. He has, therefore, submitted that the action of<br \/>\n\tthe respondent authorities in not considering the petitioners&#8217; case<br \/>\n\ton merits on one hand and rejecting the entire case only on the<br \/>\n\tground of the petitioners not having deposited the amount of duty<br \/>\n\tsaved with interest though no details of such amounts are ever made<br \/>\n\tavailable to the petitioners notwithstanding the petitioners&#8217;<br \/>\n\twillingness to deposit the required amounts on the other hand, is<br \/>\n\tunreasonable, illegal and without jurisdiction in the facts of this<br \/>\n\tcase.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr.Dave further submitted<br \/>\n\tthat the respondents have no authority in law to have imposed any<br \/>\n\tfiscal penalty on the petitioners in the facts of this case because<br \/>\n\tof the peculiar fact that the value addition achieved by the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner company for export of goods, when the value of the<br \/>\n\timported materials was compared with the value of exported goods,<br \/>\n\thas been to the extent of 152.86% as against the specified<br \/>\n\trequirement of achieving value addition of 135% for the advance<br \/>\n\tlicense. Thus, there is not only positive value addition achieved by<br \/>\n\tthe petitioner company while exporting the goods under this advance<br \/>\n\tlicense, but the value addition achieved has been much higher than<br \/>\n\tthe specification prescribed under the Exim Policy.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr.Dave lastly submitted<br \/>\n\tthat though the office of Jt. DGFT, Baroda had suggested to the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner company for getting the advance license in question to<br \/>\n\tquantity based advance license so as to regularize the case, there<br \/>\n\twas no such obligation on the petitioner company to go for any such<br \/>\n\tregularization also in view of the provisions of para 7.28 of the<br \/>\n\tHand Book of Procedure   Volume   1- 1997-2002 whereunder it is<br \/>\n\tprovided that no penalty shall be imposed if the export obligation<br \/>\n\twas fulfilled in terms of quantity but there was a shortfall in<br \/>\n\tterms of value when the license holder had achieved positive value<br \/>\n\taddition. The penalty is provided under the Exim Policy only when<br \/>\n\tthere was a shortfall in terms of value addition achieved fell below<br \/>\n\ta minimum prescribed requirement for a license. In the facts of this<br \/>\n\tcase, therefore, there was no liability of any penalty on the<br \/>\n\tpetitioners&#8217; part and, therefore, there was no need also to go for<br \/>\n\tany regularization by converting the value based advance license in<br \/>\n\tquestion into the quantity based advance license. He has, therefore,<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that the impugned order be quashed and set aside and the<br \/>\n\tpetition be allowed accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr.P. S. Champaneri,<br \/>\n\tlearned Assistant Solicitor General, on the other hand, has<br \/>\n\tsupported the orders passed by the respondent authorities.  Mr.<br \/>\n\tChampaneri further submitted that the petitioner company had failed<br \/>\n\tto submit export documents towards fulfillment of export obligation<br \/>\n\tand hence Demand Notice was issued to them on 4.1.1996 followed by<br \/>\n\tshow cause notice on 17.7.1996 with opportunity of personal hearing<br \/>\n\ton 6.8.1996.  Since there was no response from the petitioner<br \/>\n\tcompany to the show cause notice dated 17.7.1996, another show cause<br \/>\n\tnotice was issued to the petitioner company on 24.6.1998.  Vide<br \/>\n\tletter dated 30.7.1998, the petitioner has submitted photo copy of<br \/>\n\texport documents as an evidence of fulfillment of export obligation.<br \/>\n\t The respondents have asked for the original export documents vide<br \/>\n\tletter dated 30.11.1998 which were submitted on 10.9.1999.  The<br \/>\n\tdocuments were examined and deficiency letter was issued to the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner on 14.12.1999 which was replied on 6.2.2000. The<br \/>\n\tpetitioner was again issued another deficiency letter on 12.5.2000,<br \/>\n\tpursuant to which the petitioner submitted documents on 30.5.2000<br \/>\n\twhich were examined and deficiency letter was issued on 4.9.2000.<br \/>\n\tSince the petitioner has not complied with the deficiency pointed<br \/>\n\tout on 4.9.2000, show cause notice was issued on 7.1.2004with<br \/>\n\topportunity of personal hearing on 22.1.2004 which was returned<br \/>\n\tundelivered with postal remarks  left .  Show cause notice under<br \/>\n\tSection-14 of Foreign Trade (Development &amp; Regulation) Act, 1992<br \/>\n\twas issued to the Company and its Directors on 7.6.2005 with<br \/>\n\tpersonal hearing on 16.8.2005.  The petitioner company was placed<br \/>\n\tunder default on 4.2.2006. The respondents have directed the party<br \/>\n\tto get the excess import regularized by payment of custom duty and<br \/>\n\tinterest vide letter dated 5.5.2006.  Since there was no response<br \/>\n\tfrom the Company firm adjudication order dated 6.5.2008 was issued<br \/>\n\tto the Company and its Directors. Even in that adjudication order it<br \/>\n\twas clearly mentioned about the excess imports made by the<br \/>\n\tpetitioners. This order was challenged by the petitioners in Appeal<br \/>\n\tbefore the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority had<br \/>\n\tgranted opportunity of personal hearing on 16.12.2008, 27.1.2009,<br \/>\n\t17.3.2009 and 2.4.2009. The Appellate Authority has specifically<br \/>\n\tobserved in the Appellate Order that the petitioners were directed<br \/>\n\tto pay custom duty and interest on the excess import made and they<br \/>\n\tdid not appear for personal hearing on 2.4.2009.  Ultimately the<br \/>\n\tAppeal was dismissed on 25.5.2009 on the ground that the petitioner<br \/>\n\tdid not comply with the directions given during the personal<br \/>\n\thearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr.Champaneri further<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that as per records available with the respondent No.3,<br \/>\n\tthe petitioner had fulfilled export obligation to the tune of 86.64%<br \/>\n\tand earned US $527488.30. However, the petitioner was entitled to<br \/>\n\timport the raw material  disperse dyes  12% of the FOB value<br \/>\n\tonly but they imported more than their entitlement and hence<br \/>\n\trespondent No.3 had issued a letter to the petitioners on 5.5.2006<br \/>\n\tto regularize the excess import by paying custom duty and interest<br \/>\n\tin terms of Policy Circular No.28 dated 22.9.2000. Since this was<br \/>\n\tnot done, the penalty was imposed and the order of the adjudicating<br \/>\n\tauthority imposing the penalty was also confirmed by the Appellate<br \/>\n\tAuthority.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr.Champaneri further<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that the advance licenses are issued with certain<br \/>\n\tconditions of exports and imports which are reckoned on case to case<br \/>\n\tbasis. The advance license referred to in the present case is a<br \/>\n\tvalue based one and accordingly value terms in free foreign exchange<br \/>\n\tare main criteria. In the present case, the export obligation fixed<br \/>\n\twas US $ 608800 whereas the petitioners fulfilled only US $<br \/>\n\t527486.30 i.e. 86.64%. The realization of less amount in US $ cannot<br \/>\n\tbe attributed with the fluctuation in exchange rate of Rupees.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr.Champaneri further<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that the advance license in question was issued to the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner with a specific value addition to be achieved and not<br \/>\n\twith positive value addition   a concept which was envisaged in<br \/>\n\tthe Exim Policy after a long period after issue of the license to<br \/>\n\tthe petitioner. He has further submitted that para-7.28 of the Hand<br \/>\n\tBook of procedures cannot be made applicable to the value based<br \/>\n\tadvance license issued to the petitioner on 6.1.995.  He has,<br \/>\n\ttherefore, submitted that the contention of the petitioner that they<br \/>\n\thave achieved positive value addition and no penalty could be<br \/>\n\timposed on the ground of shortfall in terms of value is not at all<br \/>\n\tcorrect and cannot stand in the eye of law. He has, therefore,<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that no interference of this Court is called for in the<br \/>\n\torders passed by the respondent authorities and the petition be<br \/>\n\tdismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tHaving heard the learned<br \/>\n\tadvocate Mr.Dave appearing for the petitioners and learned Assistant<br \/>\n\tSolicitor General appearing for the respondent authorities and<br \/>\n\thaving gone through the impugned orders in light of the pleadings of<br \/>\n\tthe parties contained in the memo of petition as well as<br \/>\n\taffidavit-in-reply, the Court is of the view that once having given<br \/>\n\tan option to the petitioners to regularize the transaction in<br \/>\n\tquestion by getting value based license converted into quantity<br \/>\n\tbased license and by paying the duty with interest as regards the<br \/>\n\tshortfall in value of the exported goods and not giving calculation<br \/>\n\tof figures for payment of custom duty and interest, despite repeated<br \/>\n\trequests by the petitioner, would not make the petitioners liable<br \/>\n\tfor penalty. It is true that there are some lapses on the part of<br \/>\n\tthe petitioners.  However, before the Appellate Authority a specific<br \/>\n\tplea was raised by the petitioners&#8217; advocate that the petitioner was<br \/>\n\twilling to pay duty alongwith interest thereon and for that purpose<br \/>\n\ttime was granted to produce the original receipt of payment of duty<br \/>\n\tplus interest. During the period between 17.3.2009 to 2.4.2009 the<br \/>\n\tpetitioners wrote two letters on 19.3.2009 as well as on 24.3.2009.<br \/>\n\tThe petitioners have not received any reply to these letters, hence<br \/>\n\tthe petitioners had asked for time on 2.4.2009 and requested the<br \/>\n\tAdditional DGFT to direct the Joint DGFT at Vadodara to inform the<br \/>\n\tpetitioners about the exact amount to be paid for the purpose of<br \/>\n\tregularizing the transaction.  The petitioners have also reiterated<br \/>\n\tin the said letter that the petitioners were ready to pay the duty<br \/>\n\tand interest to regularize the transaction. Instead of acceding to<br \/>\n\tthe request made in this letter or adjourning the hearing, the<br \/>\n\tAppellate Authority has straightway passed order on 25\/28.5.2009<br \/>\n\tdismissing the Appeal of the petitioners by observing that the<br \/>\n\tpetitioners failed to produce the evidence of payment of duty saved<br \/>\n\tplus interest. We are of the view that the order of the Appellate<br \/>\n\tAuthority is in violation of the principle of natural justice and<br \/>\n\tcontrary to law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe stand of the<br \/>\n\trespondent authorities is that the petitioners were informed by<br \/>\n\tletter dated 5.5.2006 to get the excess import regularized by<br \/>\n\tpayment of duty and interest. First of all, this letter was not<br \/>\n\tproduced alongwith the affidavit-in-reply and on direction by the<br \/>\n\tCourt to produce the said letter, the same was produced<br \/>\n\tsubsequently. On perusal of the said letter it is found that no<br \/>\n\tfigure is mentioned in the said letter. It is simply stated that the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner should do needful as per the Policy Circular No.28 dated<br \/>\n\t22.9.2000. This is to be viewed in light of the specific stand taken<br \/>\n\tby the petitioners that the export obligations have been fully made<br \/>\n\tby the petitioner company in terms of quantity thereby fulfilling<br \/>\n\tthe export obligation.  However, in view of fluctuation in the<br \/>\n\texchange rate between the US Dollar and Indian Rupee, the CIF value<br \/>\n\tof the imported inputs have gone up whereas the FOB value of the<br \/>\n\tgoods exported by the petitioner Company had gone down thereby<br \/>\n\tresulting in an impression that the petitioner company had not<br \/>\n\tfulfilled the export obligations; though the entire export<br \/>\n\tobligation in terms of quantities stood fulfilled. The details of<br \/>\n\timports as well as exports in terms of quantities are duly reflected<br \/>\n\tin the petitioners&#8217; DEEC Book.  We are not examining this issue as<br \/>\n\tto whether the stand taken by the petitioner is correct or<br \/>\n\totherwise. However, for the purpose of deciding the question of levy<br \/>\n\tof penalty this would have certainly a bearing on the issue and<br \/>\n\thence while quashing the impugned orders of levy of penalty and\/or<br \/>\n\tconfirmation thereof by the Appellate Authority we direct the<br \/>\n\trespondent authorities to inform the petitioners within one month<br \/>\n\tfrom the date of receipt of the writ of this Court or from the date<br \/>\n\tof receipt of certified copy of this order, whichever is earlier,<br \/>\n\tabout the exact amount of custom duty with interest to be paid by<br \/>\n\tthe petitioners for regularization of transaction in question and on<br \/>\n\treceipt of such communication by the petitioners from the respondent<br \/>\n\tauthorities, within one month there from the petitioners shall pay<br \/>\n\tthe said amount subject to their right to challenge the correctness<br \/>\n\tthereof before the appropriate forum. Despite such intimation if the<br \/>\n\tpetitioners fail to pay such amount it is open for the respondent<br \/>\n\tauthorities to proceed further in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSubject to the aforesaid<br \/>\n\tdirections and observations this petition is accordingly allowed.<br \/>\n\tRule is made absolute without any order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(K. A. PUJ, J.)  (RAJESH<br \/>\n\tH. SHUKLA, J.)      <\/p>\n<p>kks<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Messrs vs Government on 18 February, 2010 Author: K.A.Puj,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice H.Shukla,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/10724\/2009 2\/ 22 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10724 of 2009 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-112755","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Messrs vs Government on 18 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/messrs-vs-government-on-18-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Messrs vs Government on 18 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/messrs-vs-government-on-18-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-12T00:06:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/messrs-vs-government-on-18-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/messrs-vs-government-on-18-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Messrs vs Government on 18 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-12T00:06:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/messrs-vs-government-on-18-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2866,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/messrs-vs-government-on-18-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/messrs-vs-government-on-18-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/messrs-vs-government-on-18-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Messrs vs Government on 18 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-12T00:06:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/messrs-vs-government-on-18-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/messrs-vs-government-on-18-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/messrs-vs-government-on-18-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Messrs vs Government on 18 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Messrs vs Government on 18 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/messrs-vs-government-on-18-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Messrs vs Government on 18 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/messrs-vs-government-on-18-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-12T00:06:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/messrs-vs-government-on-18-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/messrs-vs-government-on-18-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Messrs vs Government on 18 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-12T00:06:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/messrs-vs-government-on-18-february-2010"},"wordCount":2866,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/messrs-vs-government-on-18-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/messrs-vs-government-on-18-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/messrs-vs-government-on-18-february-2010","name":"Messrs vs Government on 18 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-12T00:06:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/messrs-vs-government-on-18-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/messrs-vs-government-on-18-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/messrs-vs-government-on-18-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Messrs vs Government on 18 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112755","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=112755"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112755\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=112755"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=112755"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=112755"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}