The court highlighted that petitioners must comply with procedural requirements and approach timely, failing which relief may be denied due to delay and laches.

JUDGMENT

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

Tara Vitasta Ganju, J. (Oral)--The Petitioner, herein, is a manufacturer of electrical motors, control switches and MCB's distribution boards, electricity fans, etc.

2. As per averments in the petition, pursuant to a search conducted at the factory premises of the Petitioner, certain goods were recovered and seized which were unaccounted for in the books of accounts. The Petitioner paid duty along with the interest and penalty to close the matter. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 30.08.2016 was issued to the Petitioner, inter-alia, proposing confiscation of the seized goods and levying of a redemption fine and penalty on the Petitioner.

2.1. The Petitioner further averred that the allegations in the show cause notice were upheld and thereafter on Appeal, the Order-in-Original imposed a redemption fine of Rs.7,50,000/- for finished goods and Rs.1,05,000/- for raw materials on the Petitioner.

2.2. It is averred by the Petitioner that the above-mentioned Order-in-Original was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), by its order dated 16.05.2017. The said order in appeal was challenged by the Petitioner before the Customs Excise and Services Tax, Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).

2.3. By order dated 29.12.2017, the CESTAT rejected the Appeal of the Petitioner.

3. The Petitioner has, however, not filed any of the aforegoing documents except for the CESTAT order dated 29.12.2017 which has been filed as Annexure P-1.

4. It is the case of the Petitioner that on introduction of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (the SVLDR Scheme), the Petitioner approached the Designated Committee of Respondent No. 4 for settlement of the above issue thereunder on 10.12.2019.

5. By an e-mail dated 25.12.2019, the Petitioner was informed by Respondent No. 4, that his Application under the SVLDR Scheme has been rejected. It is against the order of Respondent No.4, which was communicated by the e-mail dated 25.12.2019, that the Petitioner has filed the present petition, which is listed today, praying that his application should be adjudicated under the SVLDR Scheme.

6. The Petitioner has annexed along with the Petition as Annexure P-7 (Colly), letters dated 25.11.2020 and 09.12.2020, i.e., written almost after one year of submitting his application, which were addressed to the Assistant Commissioner (GST), Naraina, South Delhi, Commissionerate, inter-alia, requiring a detailed order of rejection from them.

7. The Petitioner has also filed the acknowledgement receipt of the Form SVLDR-1 issued by the Respondent No. 4, which is annexed as Annexure P-2. The said receipt shows that the receipt contains instructions/remarks by Respondent No. 4 for the Petitioner which read as follows:

7.1. As per the remarks mentioned in the acknowledgement receipt the Petitioner was asked to "justify his case".

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 Scheme which are required to be followed by an Ap