TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging rejection under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 could be entertained despite a delay of more than 2.5 years and the absence of any cogent explanation for the delay. (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief despite non-compliance with the instructions issued in the acknowledgement of the SVLDR-1 form and suppression of material facts.
Issue (i): Whether the writ petition challenging rejection under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 could be entertained despite a delay of more than 2.5 years and the absence of any cogent explanation for the delay.
Analysis: The declaration under the Scheme had to be made within the prescribed period, and the impugned rejection was communicated on 25.12.2019. The petition was instituted only on 31.05.2022. The explanation offered for the delay was found inadequate, including the reference to COVID-19 and alleged absence of a speaking order. The Court applied the settled principle that relief under writ jurisdiction can be refused where there is unexplained delay and laches, particularly when no timely challenge is made despite knowledge of the adverse order.
Conclusion: The writ petition was barred by delay and laches, and this issue was decided against the petitioner.
Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief despite non-compliance with the instructions issued in the acknowledgement of the SVLDR-1 form and suppression of material facts.
Analysis: The acknowledgement receipt indicated that further compliance was required, including submission of an undertaking in terms of the CBIC circular. No material was produced to show compliance with those instructions. The pleadings were also found to be deficient and inconsistent on the question whether a rejection order had been communicated. The Court held that a litigant seeking equitable relief must come with clean hands and disclose all material facts; suppression and non-compliance disentitled the petitioner to relief.
Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to discretionary relief, and this issue was decided against the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the rejection under the SVLDR Scheme failed on both delay-related and equitable grounds, leaving no basis for interference under writ jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: A writ court may decline relief where a challenge is brought after an inordinate and unexplained delay and where the petitioner has suppressed material facts or failed to comply with the prescribed scheme requirements, since equitable jurisdiction is unavailable to a litigant who does not act promptly and candidly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
