The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Foreign Trade Policy provisions regarding the reimbursement of Central Sales Tax paid by Export Oriented Units and the impact of communications and clarifications issued by the relevant authorities.

Heard.

2. As the issues involved in both the writ petitions are common in nature, both the writ petitions are being heard, considered and disposed of, by this common order.

3. Both the writ petitions had been filed, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue Writs of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to invoke the jurisdiction, under the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014 and the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20, relating to the reimbursement of the Central Sales Tax, paid by the petitioner, for the financial years 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively.

4. In the above writ petitions, it has been stated that the petitioner is a private limited company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner Company is a 100% Export Oriented Unit, engaged in the business of manufacturing telephone cords and charger cable assemblies. The 100% Export Oriented Unit can procure the raw materials, without duty incidence and export the manufactured goods with Net Foreign Exchange positive. It has been further stated that the customs duty for the imports of the raw materials are Nil, under the customs benefit notification 52/2003, and the central excise duty is Nil, on producing CT.3 certificate, under CE notification No.22/2003. The procurement of the materials with State levy is vated, and the refund of the Central Sales Tax paid is taken care of by the Development Commissioner concerned.

5. The procedure for tax exemption for the purchase of the materials from the Special Economic Zone is to pay the Central Sales Tax and to get the reimbursement of the same. It has been stated that the petitioner is entitled for reimbursement of the Central Sales Tax, paid on the goods manufactured in India, as per paragraph 6.11(c)(i) of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014 and 2015-20. But, the only condition in the Foreign Trade Policy is that the goods should have been manufactured in India.

6. It has been further stated that the respondent had allowed reimbursement of the Central Sales Tax paid on the materials procured by the petitioner, from the Special Economic Zone, upto the period 31.3.2013, based on the same Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014. However, when the petitioner had claimed reimbursement of the Central Sales Tax, paid on the materials procured by the petitioner from the Special Economic Zone, for the period 2013-14, the respondent, vide letter, dated 30.4.2014, had denied the reimbursement of the Central Sales Tax paid by the petitioner, even though the payment of sales tax is exempted in such cases.

7. The respondent, vide letter, dated 22.1.2015, had stated that under the existing provisions already available in the relevant Foreign Trade Policy and the Central Sales Tax Act, the supply of goods to the Export Oriented Units shall be treated as Deemed Exports and the payment of the Central Sales Tax is exempted. Hence, the petitioner had been advised to approach the Sales Tax authorities, for exemption of the payment of the Central Sales Tax, for the purchases made from the Special Economic Zone unit, located at Noida-SEZ. The said advice of the respondent is illogical and impracticable and it is misleading, being contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy. The claim of the petitioner is for the reimbursement of the Central Sales Tax already paid. Hence, the question of approaching the sales tax authorities for exemption of the payment of the Central Sales Tax already paid, especially, when the transactions had been concluded, would not arise. As the Special Economic Zone supplier from Noida had continued their supply of materials with the Central Sales Tax and as the petitioner had paid the Central Sales Tax against the 'C' Form, for the procurement of the materials from the Special Economic Zone, the petitioner had made a claim for the reimbursement of the Central Sales Tax already paid, for the periods 2013-14 and 2014-15, vide letter, dated 16.5.2015.

8. It has been further stated that the respondent had failed to appreciate that exempti