Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeIndirect TaxesErroneous Interpretation Of Foreign Trade Policy : Delhi High Court Issues Notice...

Erroneous Interpretation Of Foreign Trade Policy : Delhi High Court Issues Notice To DGFT

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula has issued a notice to the Union of India (UOI)/Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) concerning the computation of Net Foreign Exchange Earnings (NFE) and petition claiming erroneous interpretation of foreign trade policy.

The petitioner/assessee has challenged the orders passed by Directorate General of Foreign Trade, by which the Petitioner’s claim under the Service Exports from India Scheme for Financial Year 2017-18 and FY 2018-19, has been partially rejected. The Petitioner contended that the rejection is based on an erroneous interpretation of the provisions of the applicable Foreign Trade Policy.

The issue pertains to the deduction of the entire foreign exchange expenditure (including both export and domestic operations) from the foreign exchange earnings of notified services while determining eligibility under the Service Export from India Scheme (SEIS).

The assessee contended that the position adopted by the DGFT is not only contrary to the policy provisions but also inconsistent with their earlier stance in similar cases involving our client and other exporters.

Previously, the assessee preferred a second-level appeal before the Appellate Committee under Section 15 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act. However, the appellate authority has been non-functional due to the vacancy in the Chairman’s position. Consequently, the assessee filed this writ petition.

The court has issued the notice to the Union of India (UOI)/Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) and directed to file the Counter affidavit within a period of four weeks.

Read More: 5% GST On Coconut Oil Sold In Small Packages : Supreme Court

Case Details

Case Title: Intertek India Pvt. Ltd Versus DGFT & Ors.

Case No.:  W.P.(C) 17509/2024

Date: 19.12.2024

Counsel For Petitioner: Nikhil Gupta

Counsel For Respondent: Shiva Lakshmi

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

DRC-01 Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: GSTAT  

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Lucknow Division Bench, has delivered a...

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 14 SEPTEMBER, 2026

Here’s the Tax Law Daily Bulletin for  September 14, 2026.GSTGST DEPT. CANT ADJUST SANCTIONED...

No GST On Recovery Of Electricity Charges At Actual Cost Without Markup: AAR

The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (WBAAR) has held that electricity charges recovered...

18% GST On New Water Pipeline Construction: AAR

The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (WBAAR) has ruled that works involving the...

More like this

DRC-01 Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: GSTAT  

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Lucknow Division Bench, has delivered a...

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 14 SEPTEMBER, 2026

Here’s the Tax Law Daily Bulletin for  September 14, 2026.GSTGST DEPT. CANT ADJUST SANCTIONED...

No GST On Recovery Of Electricity Charges At Actual Cost Without Markup: AAR

The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (WBAAR) has held that electricity charges recovered...