Writ to Quash Advance Authorisation Rejection for CPC Export to SEZ Units Under FTP Rejected as Delhi HC Lacked Jurisdiction

Case Details: Rain CII Carbon Vizag Ltd. v. Union of India - [2025] 172 taxmann.com 407 (HC-Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Devender Kumar Upadhyay, CJ. & Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
• P. Chidambaram, Sr. Adv, Syed Jafar Alam, Ms Ankita Amarnath Kamath & Shivraj Berry, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Ms Rukhmini Bobde, CGSC, Hussain TaquiAmlaan Kumar & Vinayak Arun, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Central Government issued Foreign Trade Policy, 2023 (FTP) through DGFT under section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.

Chapter 4 of the FTP refers to Advance Authorisation, which is issued to allow duty-free import of input, which is physically incorporated into export products, including export to special economic zone (SEZ) Units.

The petitioner had its registered office in Hyderabad. The petitioner had submitted applications for Advance Authorisation for the export of Calcined Pet Coke (CPC) to SEZ Units. The petitioner was aggrieved by the rejection of the application seeking Advance Authorisation for the manufacture and export of CPC to SEZ Units.

Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking to quash the rejection letter. The Respondents raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition on the anvil of the Delhi High Court’s lack of territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the writ petition.

It was noted that since the petitioner had its registered office at Hyderabad, its plant for converting RPC to CPC was located at Vishakhapatnam, State Andhra Pradesh, and the CPC produced by the petitioner was to be supplied to a unit located at SEZ in the State of Orissa.

High Court Held

The High Court observed that the petitioner made an application seeking Advance Authorisation from its registered office at Hyderabad, and the impugned rejection letter was served upon the petitioner at Hyderabad.

The High Court held that since the impugned rejection letter was issued by the Regional Authority exercising jurisdiction over the area within which the city of Hyderabad was located, the Delhi High Court neither had the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition nor would it be the ‘forum conveniens’ to decide lis.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Vernor v. Elvies; 6 Disct. Of Dec. 4788 (1610).[Para 19]
• Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 254 [Para 20]
• Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3162 [Para 26]; followed.

List of Cases Referred to

• State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2023) 7 SCC 791 (para 10)
• Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3162 (para 12)
• Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 254 (para 13)
• Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. v. Kalyan Banerjee (2008) 3 SCC 456 (para 16)
• Shanti Devi v. Union of India & Ors. (2020) 10 SCC 766 (para 17)
• Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam; (2017) 4 SCC 150 (para 17)
• Bhagat Singh Bugga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney 1941 SCC OnLine Cal 247 (para 20)
• Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal 1945 SCC OnLine Cal 145 (para 20)
• New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India 1993 SCC OnLine Del 564 (para 20)
• Ambica Industries v. CCE (2007) 6 SCC 769 (para 26).