Skip to main content

Commerce Ministry amends norms to prevent SEZ land misuse

Developers seeking to surrender Special Economic Zones will have to give an undertaking that the land will be used in accordance with the recently amended guidelines so as to prevent its misuse, the Commerce Ministry said on Tuesday.

Only those applications that fulfil the criteria laid down by the government will be considered for SEZ denotification, the Ministry said.

As per the amended SEZ rules, “All such proposals (for denotification) must have an unambiguous ‘No Objection Certificate’ from state government concerned. Such land parcels after denotification will conform to Land Use guidelines/master plans of the respective state governments.”

State governments may also ensure that such denotified parcels of land would be utilised towards creation of infrastructure which would sub-serve the objective of the SEZ as originally envisaged, according to the rules.

“These conditions are in addition with the Board of Approval may impose including refund of duties/benefits which the developer may have availed on the land denotified, preservation of contiguity of the remaining parcel of SEZ land,” the Ministry said.

Once an attraction for investors, SEZs have lost sheen after the imposition of Minimum Alternate Tax, Dividend Distribution Tax in 2011 and certain provisions in the proposed Direct Tax Code regime as well as global demand slowdown.

As many as 58 SEZ developers had surrendered their projects due to various reasons including global economic slowdown, till July 31 this year.

The government has formally approved 576 such zones out of which 173 have commenced exports.

During April-June, exports from these zones stood at Rs. 1.13 lakh crore. During the quarter, the country’s overall exports aggregated to Rs 4.05 lakh crore.

Article referred: http://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/commerce-ministry-amends-norms-to-prevent-sez-land-misuse/article5236908.ece

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more