SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SHAKDHER, TARA VITASTA GANJU
SKN Bentex Group – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Table of Content
1. introduction and details of the petitioner's case. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner applied to the svldr scheme but faced rejection. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. delays in application's rejection and lack of justification. (Para 8 , 9)
4. legal principles regarding delay and laches. (Para 10 , 11)
5. petitioner's failure to demonstrate entitlement to relief. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
6. judgment's conclusion – petition dismissed. (Para 15 , 16)

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 t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top