9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 862X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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 b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. The Petitioner, herein, is a manufacturer of electrical motors, control switches and MCB s distribution boards, electricity fans, etc. 2. As per averments in the petition, pursuant to a search conducted at the factory premises of the Petitioner, certain goods were recovered and seized which were unaccounted for in the books of accounts. The Petitioner paid duty along with the interest and penalty to close the matter. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 30.08.2016 was issued to the Petitioner, inter-alia, proposing confiscation of the seized goods and levying of a redemption fine and penalty on the Petitioner. 2.1. The Petitioner further averred that the allegations in the show cause notice were upheld and that thereafter on Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petition as Annexure P-7 (Colly), letters dated 25.11.2020 and 09.12.2020, i.e., written almost after one year of submitting his application, which were addressed to the Assistant Commissioner (GST), Naraina, South Delhi, Commissionerate, inter-alia requiring a detailed order of rejection from them. 7. The Petitioner has also filed the acknowledgement receipt of the Form SVLDR-1 issued by the Respondent No. 4, which is annexed as Annexure P-2. The said receipt shows that the receipt contains instructions/remarks by Respondent No. 4 for the Petitioner which read as follows: - W.P.(C) No. Application No. Date of Acknowledgement Receipts Relevant Extract of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner states that his application was rejected on 25.12.2019. 8.1. As noticed above, the rejection order was passed on 25.12.2019 and the instant writ petition was filed on 31.05.2022, i.e., after a lapse of 2.5 years. 8.2. Admittedly, the rejection order was made available to the Petitioner on 25.12.2019 itself, but no action was taken thereafter. The only explanation provided by the Petitioner in this regard is in para 14 of his petition which reads as follows: - 14. That the petitioner also made a number of personal visits to the Central Excise Commissionerate but no speaking order has been supplied to the petitioner till date. Further, the petitioner were verbally told that the email dated 25.12.2019 was the only order on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im. The Supreme Court has in Royal Orchid Hotels Limited and Another vs G. Jayarama Reddy and Others reported as (2011) 10 Supreme Court Cases 608 held as follows: - 25. ..Another reason for the High Court s refusal to entertain belated claim is that during the intervening period rights of third parties may have crystallised and it will be inequitable to disturb those rights at the instance of a person who has approached the Court after long lapse of time and there is no cogent explanation for the delay. We may hasten to add that no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down and no straightjacket formula can be evolved for deciding the question of delay/laches and each case has to be decided on its own facts. 29. In Shankara Coop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delay. 11. 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. 12. The Petitioner in support of his case, has filed certain judgments including three judgments of a coordinate Bench of this Court wherein a similar rejection under the SVLDR Scheme has been set aside and an opportunity of hearing has been given to the Petitioner. The ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
