IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: September 24, 2025 M/s Quarkcity India (Pvt.) Ltd. ..... Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ..... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Present: Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate for the respondents.

****

LISA GILL, J.

1. Prayer in this writ petition reads as under:-

“i) writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction for quashing the action of the respondents in levy of duty of Rs.47 lacs upon the petitioner company inconsonance with the minutes of meeting held on 22.5.2015 (Annexure P-18) and further for quashing of the order dated 18.8.2015 (Annexure P-21), whereby the petitioner has been asked to deposit the custom duty amounting to Rs.6,59,700/- for the purpose of permission to dispose of unutilized goods under Special Economic Zone Rules 2006, being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, against the settled principles of law.

ii) Further a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.47,00,000/-, which has been deposited by the petitioner under protest on account of custom duties for seeking permission to dispose of unutilized goods under SEZ Rules, which was deposited vide challan No.01/2016-17, dated 20.4.2016 and Rs.6,59,700/- deposited vide challan No.05/2015-16, dated 29.7.2015 in the interest of justice.

iii) Or any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be issued.

iv) Dispense with the filing of certified copies of Annexures and permission to place photo copies of Annexures.

v) Dispense with issuance of advance notice to the respondents.

vi) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the matter are that petitioner claims to be a body incorporated under Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the business of developing industrial and urban townships, other infrastructural projects including development of First Operational Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in Punjab that is approved for IT and ITES sector. It is pleaded that petitioner was granted approval for setting up SEZ for an area of 13.75 hectares in plot No. A-40A, Focal Point, Industrial Area-VII Extension, District Mohali vide notification dated 02.11.2006 issued by Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce (Annexure P-1). This area was subsequently reduced to 10.12 hectares.

3. Petitioner, it is stated, receives goods from Domestic Tariff Area (for short – DTA) suppliers from all over the country. Notification dated 10.05.2008 was issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 25(1) of Customs Act, 1962 exempting goods specified in column (3) of table annexed and falling under Head of Second Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 specified in corresponding entry in column (2) of said table, when exported out of India, from so much of the duty of customs leviable thereon under Second Schedule as is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate specified in corresponding entry in column (4) of table. This notification was then amended vide subsequent notification dated 13.06.2008. It is pleaded that there was lack of clarity about the scope and coverage of these entries and customs formations had even sought to charge export duty on items such as forging of iron and steel structuring and articles. Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Tax Research Unit (SEZ Section), issued clarification that Second Schedule of Customs Tariff Act was not aligned with Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) and in order to remove any ambiguity, coverage of these entries were reproduced in the table. Communication dated 30.06.2008 was issued by Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce (SEZ Section) with regard to applicability of export duty o