TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 863
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ms Suhani Mathur, Advocate for R-2 to 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 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 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 Delh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... W.P.(C) 9087/2022 was asked to produce the proof of pre-deposit for verification along with supporting documents in order to justify their case. 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 Sche....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rary to Annexure P2 filed by the Petitioners. The Petitioners have, therefore, failed to explain why it has taken them more than 2.5 years after the passing of 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 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. (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Del.) (2) Industrial Personnel & Security Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commr. of CGST, Delhi South; 2020 (373) E.L.T.44 (Del.) (3) Vaishali Sharma vs. Union of India; 2020(40) G.S.T.L. 441 (Del.) (4) CCR Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vs. 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 o....