No Revival of Balance Duty Credit after 7 Years: Calcutta HC Dismisses ₹66.37 Lakh Claim under Incremental Exports Incentivisation Scheme [Read Order]
The High Court held that it is impermissible for a settled issue to be permitted to unsettle after more than a decade.
Balance Duty Credit - Calcutta HC - Incremental Exports - Incentivisation Scheme - taxscan
Balance Duty Credit - Calcutta HC - Incremental Exports - Incentivisation Scheme - taxscan
The Calcutta HighCourt recently dismissed a writ petition seeking reconsideration of a balance duty credit claim under the Incremental Exports Incentivisation Scheme, holding that an attempt to resurrect a long-settled claim after a period of 7 years was impermissible.
The instant petition was filed byS.A. Exports against the Additional District General of Foreign Trade and others, seeking direction to consider representations concerning a claimed balance duty credit script of ₹1,66,37,438.86.
The record shows that S.A. Exports, a registered partnership that conducts foreign trade, filed the requisite ANF 3F application for the export period from 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014 vis-à-vis 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013.
In paragraph B-3 of the application, the petitioner, notwithstanding an asserted entitlement of ₹16,637,438.86, expressly restricted its claim to ₹1,00,00,000 to conform with the provisions of Notification No.43 dated 25 September 2013. On that basis the Foreign Trade Development Officer authorised credit to the petitioner for ₹1 crore by letter dated 14 May 2015.
Subsequently, the petitioner relied on the Delhi High Court judgment in M/s Welldone Exim Pvt. Ltd., delivered on 12 April 2018 wherein it was interpreted that no absolute upper limit was prescribed by the notification, potentially entitling exporters to claims beyond ₹1 crore.
A Special Leave Petition was filed by The District General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) against the ruling, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 18 July 2023. Following that, an order was purported by a Coordinate Bench of the Calcutta High Court on 25 August 2023 directing authorities to consider representations in similar cases.
Anurag Roy, Aayush Sharma and Dhirodatto Chaudhuri appearing for the petitioner submitted that although the petitioner had made a representation on 13 January 2025 and pursued follow-ups, the same were of no avail, leading to the present writ.
Meanwhile Dhiraj Trivedi, and Rishav Kumar Thakur appeared for the respondents.
A single-judge bench comprising Raja Basu Chowdhury, J., observed that the petitioner’s own application of 23 January 2015 had limited the claim to ₹1 crore and bore the signature of the petitioner’s partner.
The Bench further noted that, despite the Delhi High Court ruling in Welldone Exim (supra), being delivered in 2018, the petitioner failed to take steps for up to seven years thereafter to press any additional claim against the pending balance duty credit.
Given the circumstances, the Calcutta High Court held that the petitioner cannot attempt to resurrect a dead claim by filing a writ petition and seeking consideration of its representation at this late stage. It is well-settled that a settled issue cannot be permitted to unsettle after more than a decade.
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
