9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 864 - HC - Service TaxRejection of application under the SVLDR Scheme - delay in filing present application - steps and procedures set forth in the SVDLR Scheme which are required to be followed by an Applicant were not duly followed - HELD THAT - There is no pleading or document to show that the remarks/instructions given by Respondent No. 4 as set forth in Annexure P-2 have been adhered to. There are various other steps and procedures set forth in the SVDLR Scheme which are required to be followed by an Applicant. Therefore although the Petitioner was given an opportunity to participate further in the SVLDR Scheme it chose not to do so in the manner prescribed Besides this there is an issue relating to delay which needs to be dealt with as well. The SVLDR Scheme was in force for a limited period which came into effect from 01.09.2019. Rule 3 of the said Scheme inter-alia states that any declaration to be made under the SVLDR Scheme was to be made by an Applicant (Declarant) on or before 31.12.2019. The Petitioner states that his application was rejected on 25.12.2019 - The only other explanation that has been given by the Petitioner is that of the onset of COVID-19. However the Petitioner chose not to challenge the order of rejection in the pre-Covid period or thereafter until 2.5 years later. The Petitioner has failed to discharge this burden of delay and laches. No cogent explanation for why the Petitioner waited 2.5 years to approach this Court has been provided. No reasons have been given for not following the procedure as set forth in the SVLDR Scheme. In fact the Petitioner decided not to disclose these facts to the Court in its pleadings. Clearly these details have been deliberately concealed by the Petitioner in the present Petition. It is a matter of record that the SVLDR Scheme came into force on September 1 2019 and in terms inter-alia of the provisions of the Scheme the declaration thereunder was to be made electronically on or before 31.12.2019. The Scheme has come to an end more than 2.5 years ago and admittedly no new Scheme or similar Scheme has been floated by the Respondent No. 2/Ministry of Finance Government of India. Therefore the Petitioner has failed to show any cause why the relief sought by him under the SVLDR Scheme should be granted once the Scheme and all its proceedings have been closed. Writ Petition is dismissed.
Issues:
1. Confiscation of seized goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalty. 2. Rejection of the Petitioner's application under the SVLDR Scheme. 3. Delay in approaching the Court and non-compliance with SVLDR Scheme procedures. 4. Failure to provide a cogent explanation for delay and laches. 5. Concealment of facts regarding instructions from Respondent No. 4. 6. Applicability of judgments from coordinate Benches in similar cases. 7. Closure of SVLDR Scheme and lack of cause for relief. Confiscation of seized goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalty: The Petitioner, a manufacturer of electrical products, faced allegations of unaccounted goods seized during a search at their factory premises. After paying duty, interest, and penalty, a show cause notice proposing confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty was issued. The Order-in-Original upheld the redemption fine, which was later confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the CESTAT. Rejection of the Petitioner's application under the SVLDR Scheme: The Petitioner applied under the SVLDR Scheme for settlement but was informed of rejection via email. The Petitioner filed a petition challenging this rejection, emphasizing the need for adjudication under the SVLDR Scheme. The Petitioner submitted letters seeking detailed orders of rejection and acknowledgment receipts, indicating further steps required for eligibility under the SVLDR Scheme. Delay in approaching the Court and non-compliance with SVLDR Scheme procedures: The Petitioner's delay in approaching the Court after the rejection under the SVLDR Scheme raised concerns. The rejection order was issued on 25.12.2019, but the petition was filed 2.5 years later. The Petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay or demonstrate adherence to the SVLDR Scheme procedures, as highlighted in the acknowledgment receipt. Failure to provide a cogent explanation for delay and laches: The Court noted the lack of a convincing explanation for the Petitioner's delayed approach and non-compliance with SVLDR Scheme instructions. Despite citing the onset of COVID-19, the Petitioner's prolonged inaction and failure to challenge the rejection order promptly were deemed unjustified. Concealment of facts regarding instructions from Respondent No. 4: The Petitioner was found to have concealed information regarding instructions from Respondent No. 4, crucial for compliance with the SVLDR Scheme. The Court highlighted the Petitioner's deliberate omission of these details in the petition, indicating potential non-compliance with the Scheme's requirements. Applicability of judgments from coordinate Benches in similar cases: The Petitioner referenced judgments from coordinate Benches where rejections under the SVLDR Scheme were set aside, providing opportunities for hearings. However, the Court distinguished these cases, noting the Petitioner's failure to address the fundamental issues of delay and non-compliance present in their case. Closure of SVLDR Scheme and lack of cause for relief: Given the closure of the SVLDR Scheme without any subsequent similar scheme, the Court found no justification for granting relief to the Petitioner at this stage. Emphasizing the principle of equity, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition, highlighting the necessity for petitioners to approach the Court promptly and transparently. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the Writ Petition due to the Petitioner's delay, lack of compliance with SVLDR Scheme procedures, concealment of relevant facts, and absence of a justifiable cause for relief after the closure of the Scheme. The judgment underscores the importance of timely and transparent approaches to legal remedies, emphasizing the need for petitioners to adhere to procedural requirements and demonstrate diligence in seeking redress.
|
