9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Article 226 of the Constitution of India, following substantive relief is sought which reads as under: (a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue the writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of certiorari calling for the record and proceedings and quash and set aside Impugned communication being F.No. CGST/ME/SVLDRS/App-1217/Sagoon/2019/1006 dated 05.11.2020 and impugned SVLDRS-3 issued by Respondent No.4 bearing No.L120220SV302791 dated 12.02.2020 generated on 4th March 2020 thereby directing Respondent No.4 their servants and agents to treat the declaration/application filed by petitioner has valid declaration. (b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Covid there was no exchange of correspondences between the parties. On 5 November 2020, respondents informed the petitioner that their request for rectification could not be considered since the petitioner has not paid the amount intimated in SVLDRS Form-3 dated 12 February 2020. The petitioner replied to the said communication and denied having received SVLDRS Form-3 intimating about the payment to be made. 6. After that, the petitioner made various representations to the respondents and also raised a grievance on the portal of the respondents. However, having not received any success, the petitioner has now approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. Submissions of the Petitioner:-- 7. Mr. Shrivastava, learned counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sitive or otherwise, to show that SVLDRS Form-3 was intimated to the petitioner online, either by E-mail or otherwise. 10. If the scheme is regulated online, it cannot be accepted that there would be no proof that the respondents issued SVLDRS Form-3 and that the petitioner received it. The petitioner is justified in contending that they could not be called upon to prove negative. Still, on the contrary, the onus lies on the respondents to show that SVLDRS Form-3 was intimated to the petitioner. 11. Therefore, in our view, the respondents were not justified in not considering the petitioner's application filed on 26 December 2019. After February 2020, on account of the pandemic, the petitioner could not approach the respondents. As so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
