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

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more