M/S. Gaurav Enterprises Through Its Authorized Signatory Shri Mahavir Kumar Jain vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner failed to discharge the burden of explaining the delay and laches. The writ petition was filed over 2.5 years after the rejection of the application under the SVLDR Scheme, with no cogent explanation for this delay. The Petitioner also failed to provide reasons for not following the procedure set forth in the SVLDR Scheme, as indicated by the remarks on Annexure P-2, and deliberately concealed these facts. The Court distinguished the Petitioner's case from the cited judgments, noting that in those cases, the petitioners had approached the court promptly or the facts were distinguishable. The Court emphasized the principle that one who seeks equity must come with clean hands. Given the substantial delay, non-compliance with procedural requirements, and concealment of facts, the Court found no cause to grant the relief sought under the SVLDR Scheme, which had also concluded. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Gaurav Enterprises, a manufacturer, had goods seized during a search for being unaccounted for. They paid duty, interest, and penalty. A show cause notice was issued, proposing confiscation and penalties. This led to an Order-in-Original imposing a redemption fine, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and later by the Customs Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on December 29, 2017. The Petitioner applied under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDR Scheme) on December 10, 2019. Their application was rejected via email on December 25, 2019. The Petitioner filed the present writ petition on May 31, 2022, seeking adjudication under the SVLDR Scheme.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner's application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 was validly rejected, considering the remarks on the acknowledgement receipt (Annexure P-2) which stated the redemption fine was out of the scheme's purview and the Petitioner was a 'co-noticee' eligible only after the main noticee discharged dues? 2. Whether the writ petition is barred by delay and laches, given the rejection order was communicated on December 25, 2019, and the petition was filed over 2.5 years later on May 31, 2022, with no cogent explanation for the delay or non-compliance with the scheme's procedures? Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner sought adjudication under the SVLDR Scheme. They relied on various judgments where similar rejections were set aside and opportunities for hearing were granted, arguing that their case should be treated similarly. Revenue's arguments: The Petitioner failed to follow the prescribed procedure under the SVLDR Scheme, did not provide a cogent explanation for the significant delay in filing the writ petition, and had concealed material facts regarding the instructions provided by the respondent.