9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs are entitled for refund of Service Tax for financial year 2016-17. They were not party in matters decided by Delhi High Court - Court also finds that present petitioners have approached this Court in November, 2019 for seeking benefit of judgment in Suresh Kumar Bansal rendered by Delhi High Court. Benefit of a judgment, rendered long ago, cannot be extended after huge unexplained delay. Delay and laches in filing present writ petition has not been explained. Consequently benefit of judgment rendered by Delhi High Court cannot be extended to petitioners of this case. Petition dismissed. - Sudhir Agarwal And Rajeev Misra JJ. For the Petitioner : Santosh Kumar Singh For the Respondent : A.S.G.I.,Anjali Upadhya,C.S.C. ORDER 1. Heard Sri S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the scope of taxable service is set aside. 4. It is thus submitted that since levy of Service Tax on construction of residential complex has been declared invalid, therefore, amount of Service Tax demanded by respondent-5 and paid by petitioner is liable to be refunded. 5. On perusal of record, we find that after holding that no Service Tax on construction of residential complex could be charged, Delhi High Court directed for refund of amount of Service Tax deposited by petitioners of that case. 6. In the present case, petitioners petitioners are refund of Service Tax for financial year 2016-17. They were not party in matters decided by Delhi High Court. Court also finds that present petitioners have approached this Court in November, 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssa Vs. Pyari Mohan Samantaray and others AIR 1976 SC 2617 and State of Orissa and others Vs. Arun Kumar Patnaik and others 1976(3) SCC 579 and the said view has also been followed in Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India and others AIR 2007 SC 1330= 2007(1) Supreme 455 and New Delhi Municipal Council (supra) . The aforesaid authorities have also been followed by this Court in Chunvad Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008(4) ESC 2423 . This has been followed in Virender Chaudhary Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ors, 2009(1) SCC 297 . In S.S. Balu and another Vs. State of Kerala and others, 2009(2) SCC 479 , Court held that it is well settled principle of law that delay defeats equity. It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioners approa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
