9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed an order under section 132B(4) of the Income-tax Act (for short "the Act") on September 6, 2001, which is annexure P-1 to the writ petition. According to the said order interest of Rs. 9,598 was worked out at the rate of 15 per cent. on the refund of cash of Rs. 27,423 from six months after the date of seizure, i.e., November 13, 1985, to the date of regular assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, that is, March 14, 1988. The refund amount has been paid to the petitioner on July 24, 2001. Now the dispute survives with regard to liability of interest for the period from March 15, 1988, i.e., from the date of regular assessment to the date of actual refund i.e., July 24, 2001. The facts of the case were that on January 17, 1985, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first time asked for the refund. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner made any claim for refund or interest between May 27, 1995, when the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) passed his order and October 25, 1999, when the petitioner wrote to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central-I), New Delhi to give refund with interest. Even the letter dated October 25, 1999, does not disclose that the petitioner had written any letter before October 25, 1999, claiming refund with interest. We are of the opinion, therefore, that the petitioner is himself responsible for the delay and laches in the matter. It is well-settled that the writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction. Hence if a party approaches the court under art ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that when there is inordinate delay in filing a writ petition, the High Court in its discretionary powers under article 226 of the Constitution of India can dismiss it on this ground without going into the merits. In Jagdish Narain Maltiar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1973 SC 1343; [1967] 2 15 SCJ 464 it was held that where the petitioner a dismissed Government servant, after being informed that his services were terminated for misconduct, spent about three years in sending memorials to the Government, a remedy not provided by law, the High Court was justified in rejecting the petition on the ground of delay. In K.V. Rajalakshmiah Setty v. State of Mysore, AIR 1967 SC 993 (vide 16 para. 13) the Supreme Court held that the appellants were guilty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time spent in pursuing it can be taken into consideration in deciding whether the petitioner has approached the High Court after undue delay. It is well-settled that the writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction. Hence, even if there is violation of law, the High Court is not bound to interfere. The Supreme Court in Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan [2003] 6 SCC 545 held as under: "Issuance of a writ of certiorari is a discretionary remedy (see Champalal Binani v. CIT, AIR 1970 SC 645). The High Court and consequently this court while exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 or 32 of the Constitution of India may not strike down an illegal order although it would be lawful to do so. In a given case, the Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
