The need to exhaust remedies prescribed under the Statutes before seeking judicial review and the limited scope of judicial review.

The relief sought for in this writ petition is to call for the records in respect of the Impugned Demand Notice dated 17.04.2018 and bearing F.No.04/SFIS/Co-ord/AM-18, passed by the 3rd respondent and quash the same.

2. Mr.AL.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, contended that the impugned order on the face of it, is not only illegal, but non est in law. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the said impugned order dated 19.03.2018 has been issued by the Assistant Director General of Foreign Trade, without having any jurisdiction and competency. This apart, the order passed is self-evident that there is no application of mind on the part of the authority, who passed the order. Thirdly, absolutely there is no reason for arriving such a conclusion in respect of the fact that the petitioners are promoting ''Sheraton'' brand, which is identified as foreign brand in rendering hospitality service. This apart, by referring the judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court, the learned senior counsel is of an opinion that the Delhi High Court had considered the similar issue and set aside the clarification issued by the Director General. Thus, the case of the petitioner also to be considered on these lines.

3. It is further stated that the similar matters are pending before the Karnataka High Court and before the Delhi High Court. This being the factum of the case, in the present writ petition also, an interim order of stay to be granted.

4. This Court has gone through the order impugned passed by the respondents in proceedings dated 17.04.2018. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, the order is non-speaking and no reasons are assigned for arriving a conclusion in respect of the factual disputes. Further, there is no opportunity of hearing was provided to the writ petitioner before passing the impugned order, in spite of the request made by the petitioners in their representations.

5. This Court has gone through the earlier notice issued by the Assistant Director General of Foreign Trade in his proceedings dated 19.03.2018, the said proceedings reads as follows :

''The Policy interpretation Committee (PIC) in meeting no.10/AM12 held on 27.12.2011 regarding implementation of the terms ''All India Service Providers'' as per Para 3.12.2 of FTP 2009-14 for grant of duty credit scrip under Service from India Scheme (SFIS), decided that grant of SFIS benefits to companies representing brands not identified as Indian Brands would not be harmonious with the intent behind the scheme.

Vide the combined judgment dated 17.08.2015 passed in writ petition no.33 of 2015 (Shri Naman Hotels Private Ltd Vs. UOI & Others), 3040 of 2014 (Jupiter Hotels(p) Ltd Vs UOI & Others), 1516 of 2015 (Johnson & Johnson Pvt Ltd Vs. UOI & Others), 1755 of 2015 (M/s.Thyseenkrupp Industrial Solutions (India) Pvt Ltd (erstwhile known as UHDE India Pvt Ltd.) Vs UOI & Others the division bench of two judges of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay upheld the decision of PIC. Subsequently M/s.Thyseenkrupp Industrial Solutions (India) Pvt Ltd., filed SLP no.29742 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

In view of the above you are requested to refund the SFIS benefits availed, with interest, as per the list given as your brand is not identified as Indian Brand in line with the PIC decision and which upheld by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court & Supreme Court. Your reply should within 15 days from the date of issue of this letter or you may meet Shri Varun Singh DDGFT on any working day between 2 PM-5 PM with prior appointment to place your side of defence.''

6. Though certain references are provided in the said proceedings dated 19.03.2018, it is not clear, whether those orders and instructions were considered and adjudicated before passing the final orders in proce