9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 863X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o R-4. Mr Avnish Singh, Sr Central Govt. Counsel for R-1. Mr Harpreet Singh, Sr Standing Counsel with Ms Suhani Mathur, Advocate for R-2 to R-4. Respondents Through: None. Ms Saroj Bidawat, Advocate for R-1. [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (ORAL) 1. The Petitioners, herein, are manufacturers of electrical motors, control switches and MCB's distribution boards, electricity fans, etc. 2. As per the averments in the petition, pursuant to a search conducted at the factory premises of the Petitioners, certain goods were recovered and seized which were unaccounted for in the books of accounts. The Petitioners paid duty along with the interest and penalty to close the matter. Thereafter, a show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 that their applications should be adjudicated under the SVLDR Scheme. 6. The Petitioners have annexed along with the Petitions as Annexure P-7 (Colly), letters dated 25.11.2020 and 09.12.2020, i.e., written almost after one year of submitting their applications, which were addressed to the Assistant Commissioner (GST), Naraina, South Delhi, Commissionerate, inter-alia, requiring a detailed order of rejection from them. 7. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. Further 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of the rejection, to come before this Court. They have also failed to give any explanation with regard to non-compliance of the instructions of the Respondent No. 4 as is set forth in the acknowledgement given to them at Annexure P-2. 9.1. The only other explanation that has been given by the Petitioners is that of the onset of COVID-19. However, the Petitioners choose not to challenge the order of rejection in the pre-Covid period or thereafter, until 2.5 years later. 9.2. The Petitioners have also relied upon the orders of the Supreme Court in suo moto writ petition 2020, wherein the Supreme Court has directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 31.05.2022 shall be excluded from the period of limitation for availing statutory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 is that the rights accrued to others by the delay in filing the petition should not be disturbed, unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay, because Court should not harm innocent parties if their rights had emerged by the delay on the part of the petitioners. (3) The satisfactory way of explaining delay in making an application under Article 226 is for the petitioner to show that he had been seeking relief elsewhere in a manner provided by law. If he runs af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Union of India; 2021 (54) G.S.T.L. 8 (Chhatisgarh) (5) M/s Jay Shree Industries vs. Union of India and Anr.; 2021-TIOL-1677-HC-ALL-CX (6) M/s Synpol Products Pvt Ltd. vs. Union of India; 2020-TIOL-1493-HC-AHM-CX 12.1. Each of the aforegoing cases have been decided either in early 2020 or the Petitioners therein had approached the Court within a short period of time 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
