9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 863X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icant (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, G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is averred by the Petitioners that the above-mentioned Orders-in-Original were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), by its order dated 16.05.2017. The said orders in appeal were challenged by the Petitioners before the Customs Excise and Services Tax, Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). 2.3. By a common order dated 29.12.2017, the CESTAT decided the Orders-in-Original against the Petitioners. 3. The Petitioners have, however, not filed any of the aforegoing documents except for the CESTAT order dated 29.12.2017 which has been filed as Annexure P-1. 4. It is the case of the Petitioners that on introduction of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (the SVLDR Scheme), each of the Petitioners approached the Designated Committee of Respondent No. 4 for settlement of the above issue thereunder on 10.12.2019. 5. By separate e-mails, each dated 25.12.2019, all the Petitioners were informed by Respondent No. 4, that their application(s) under the SVLDR Scheme have been rejected. It is against the order of Respondent No.4, which was communicated by the e-mail dated 25.12.2019, that the Petitioners have filed the present petitions, which are listed today, praying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther the Respondent No.4 had also remarked in W.P.(C) No. 9282/2022 that SVLDR-2 was issued notifying the Petitioners for personal hearing with documents. The Petitioner in W.P.(C) 9117/2022 has filed an incomplete Annexure P-2. The Petitioner in W.P.(C) 9086/2022 has not filed this document at all and has filed the same receipt twice on pages 27 and 28 of the Petition. 7.2. 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 Petitioners were given an opportunity to participate further in the SVLDR Scheme, they chose not to do so in the manner prescribed. 8. 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 Petitioners state that their a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Housing Society Ltd. v. M. Prabhakar, this Court considered the question whether the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution after a long delay and laid down the following principles: (SCC pp. 629-30, para 54) (1) There is no inviolable rule of law that whenever there is a delay, the Court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition; it is a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion, and each case must be dealt with on its own facts. (2) The principle on which the Court refuses relief on the ground of laches or delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of their rejection by the concerned authority under the SVLDR Scheme. The decisions aforegoing are also based on the peculiar facts and circumstances which are distinguishable from the present case. As discussed above, in the present case, the Petitioners have failed to cross the threshold of delay and laches. 13. 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 Petitioners have failed to show any cause why the relief sought by them under the SVLDR Scheme should be granted once the Scheme and all its proceedings have been closed. 14. Additionally, one who seeks equity, must come with clean hands . The Petitioners have concealed the fact that the Respondent No. 4 had notified the Petitioners of compliances/instructions. These were deliberately not set forth in the Petition and likely not complied with eithe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
