Madras High Court: In a writ petition to quash the impugned Instruction No.01/2024(SO-MEPZ) dated 02-07-2024 issued by the Development Commissioner, MEPZ Special Economic Zone, which sought to exclude Group Health Insurance Service received by SEZ Units from the default list of services for authorized operations under the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 and Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006, Dr. Anita Sumanth, J. while observing that the impugned Instruction was prima facie contrary to the Central Government’s Instruction No. 79, ordered a stay on its operation.
The Instruction was challenged on the ground that the action of the Specified Officer contradicts the Instruction issued by the Department of Commerce (SEZ Section), Ministry of Commerce and Industry, dated 19-11-2013, which provides for a list of default services, including General Insurance Business, for the SEZs that are deemed to be towards their authorized operations.
The Court noted that the applicability of that Instruction has been continuing post the Goods and Services Tax era by way of a Notification issued by the same authority on 02-01-2018.
The Court further noted that the list, which continues to be in effect under the GST regime, specifically allows the Development Commissioners and the Unit Approval Committees to expand, but not curtail, the list of services.
Thus, the Court concluded that the Specified Officer of MEPZ-Chennai had, vide impugned Instruction unilaterally proceeded to remove General Insurance services from the purview of default list of input services.
The Court said that “prima facie and insofar as the Instruction, based on which the list of input services has been notified, is issued by the Government of India, the assumption of jurisdiction by a Specified Officer to amend the same, is itself suspect”.
The Court held that in light of the specific stipulation in Instruction No.79 that the Development Commissioner is vested with the power only to expand the list of services, the act of curtailing the list by removal of General insurance services from the ambit of the default list services, appears contrary to the parent Instruction, being Instruction No.79.
Thus, the Court stayed the operation of the impugned Instruction until further orders.
[Zoho Corporation Private Limited v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 4855, decided on 01-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioners: Raghavan Ramabadran, Krithika Jaganathan, Kiran Manokaran and Nirupama Shankar of M/s. Lakshmikumaran Sridharan Attorneys
