2022 (6) TMI 862 - HC - Service Tax

Rejection 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.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of seized goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalty.
2. Rejection of application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.
3. Delay in approaching the court and failure to comply with SVLDR Scheme procedures.

Analysis:

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. Orders upheld the redemption fine for finished goods but set aside the fine for raw materials. The Petitioner challenged the order before CESTAT, resulting in confirmation of the redemption fine for finished goods. However, the Petitioner failed to submit relevant documents except for the CESTAT order.

Rejection of application under the SVLDR Scheme:
Following the introduction of the SVLDR Scheme, the Petitioner sought settlement for the issue under the scheme. However, the application was rejected, leading to the filing of a petition. The Petitioner was asked to produce an undertaking as per CBIC Circular No. 1074/07/2019-CX, but there was no evidence of compliance with these instructions. The court noted the Petitioner's failure to follow the SVLDR Scheme procedures and the lack of explanation for the delay in approaching the court.

Delay in approaching the court and failure to comply with SVLDR Scheme procedures:
The court highlighted the importance of timely action and the Petitioner's failure to provide a valid explanation for the 2.5-year delay in filing the petition. Despite citing the onset of COVID-19, the Petitioner did not challenge the rejection order promptly. The court emphasized the need for timely relief-seeking and noted that the Petitioner concealed crucial details and failed to justify the delay. The judgments cited by the Petitioner were deemed inapplicable due to the distinct circumstances of the present case.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the Writ Petition due to the Petitioner's failure to meet the threshold of delay and laches, as well as the lack of compliance with SVLDR Scheme procedures. The court emphasized the need for timely action and adherence to legal procedures, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the petition and closure of all pending applications.