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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more