1963 (7) TMI 76 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction under Article 226 - Delay and laches in approaching the Court for relief.
2. Validity of assessment on works contracts under Madras Sales Tax Act.
3. Extenuation of delay based on correspondence with the department and lack of coercive steps for tax collection.
4. Precedents on delay and laches affecting the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226.
5. Impact of pending appeal on the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226.

The judgment of the Madras High Court dealt with an appeal by an assessee under the Madras Sales Tax Act regarding the dismissal of a writ petition for a writ of prohibition by a learned Judge. The crux of the matter was the delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court for relief under Article 226. The assessment in question involved a turnover related to works contracts and bamboo trade. The Court considered whether the delay of four years in seeking redress after a Supreme Court judgment rendered the petitioner ineligible for relief. The Court emphasized the importance of due diligence and lack of laches when seeking jurisdiction under Article 226.

The appellant argued for extenuation of the delay based on correspondence with the department and the absence of coercive steps for tax collection. However, the Court held that such factors were not relevant to the main issue of delay and laches. The Court cited precedents emphasizing the necessity for parties to exhibit due diligence and avoid unconscionable delays when seeking relief under Article 226. The Court noted that even if the appellant had not exhausted departmental remedies, the considerable delay in this case was not justified by any mitigating factors.

The judgment also referenced a Bench decision regarding illegal assessments and the impact of failure to pursue statutory remedies. The pending appeal on a similar issue was mentioned, but the Court clarified that the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 required the petitioner to demonstrate due diligence. The Court highlighted that the discretionary power of writ jurisdiction was contingent on the conduct of the petitioner, and relief could be denied based on delay and laches. Ultimately, the Court concurred with the learned Judge's decision to dismiss the writ appeal due to the petitioner's delay and laches, with no order as to costs.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of diligence and lack of delay when seeking relief under Article 226. The judgment underscored that the exercise of writ jurisdiction was discretionary and dependent on the petitioner's conduct, particularly in cases involving significant delays and laches.