Skn Bentex Group vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner had failed to discharge their burden regarding delay and laches. No cogent explanation was provided for the 2.5-year delay in approaching the Court, nor for the non-compliance with the instructions in the SVLDR Scheme acknowledgement receipt (Annexure P-2). The Court found that these details were deliberately concealed in the petition. The Petitioner's reliance on COVID-19 related exclusions from limitation was deemed misplaced, as courts functioned even during that period. The judgments cited by the Petitioner were distinguished, as they were either decided earlier or the petitioners in those cases had approached the court promptly. The Court also noted that the SVLDR Scheme had ended over 2.5 years prior, and no similar scheme was available. Furthermore, the Petitioner was found to have approached the court with unclean hands by concealing facts regarding the instructions and potential non-compliance. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

The Petitioner, a manufacturer of electrical goods, had goods seized during a search for being unaccounted for. They paid duty, interest, and penalty. A show cause notice was issued, leading to an Order-in-Original imposing a redemption fine of Rs. 7,50,000/- for finished goods and Rs. 1,05,000/- for raw materials. This was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequently by the Customs Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) by order dated 29.12.2017. The Petitioner applied under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDR Scheme) on 10.12.2019. By an e-mail dated 25.12.2019, their application was rejected. The Petitioner filed the present writ petition on 31.05.2022, seeking adjudication under the SVLDR Scheme.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner's application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDR Scheme) was rightly rejected by the Designated Committee, considering the remarks on the acknowledgement receipt and the Petitioner's subsequent conduct? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on the interpretation of the SVLDR Scheme and the conduct of the parties). 2. Whether the Petitioner is guilty of delay and laches in filing the present writ petition, thereby disentitling them to any relief? (Question of law, turning on principles of delay and laches under Article 226 of the Constitution). Petitioner's Contentions: The Petitioner argued that their application should be adjudicated under the SVLDR Scheme. They relied on various judgments, including those from a coordinate bench of the Delhi High Court, where similar rejections under the SVLDR Scheme were set aside, and opportunities for hearing were granted. They also attempted to explain the delay by referencing the onset of COVID-19 and Supreme Court orders excluding periods from limitation for statutory remedies. Respondents' Contentions: The Respondents contended that the Petitioner failed to justify their case as per the remarks on the acknowledgement receipt (Annexure P-2) and did not follow the prescribed procedures of the SVLDR Scheme. They also argued that the Petitioner was guilty of significant delay and laches in filing the writ petition, having waited 2.5 years after the rejection order, without a cogent explanation. The Respondents highlighted that the SVLDR Scheme had concluded and no similar scheme was in place.