Mill-made cloth retains its character despite size, use, or defects, but stale writ claims may fail on delay and laches.

A writ claim for refund was treated as barred by delay and laches because it was filed long after the assessment orders, and reliance on rectification or a later mistake-of-law ruling did not revive stale claims. On merits, dhotis, saris, chadars, towels, canvas, rags and fents were analysed as mill-produced fabric that had not been converted into a different commercial article. Mere size, shape, defect, or suitability for a particular use did not alter their essential character as cloth manufactured by mills, so they fell within the lower-rate notification and were not shown to have been wrongly taxed at the higher rate.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed for delay and laches; (ii) whether dhotis, saris, chadars, towels, canvas, rags and fents were "cloth manufactured by mills" under the relevant sales tax notification and therefore taxable at the lower rate.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed for delay and laches.

Analysis: The petition was filed long after the assessment orders. Reliance on the rectification provision under Section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act did not explain the delay, because the provision concerned only rectification of mistakes apparent on the face of the record and, in any event, the claim was pursued beyond the relevant period. The later decision on mistake of law did not by itself furnish a fresh cause to revive stale claims, as the petitioner had ample notice of the earlier refund litigation and of the legal position well before filing the writ petition.

Conclusion: The petition was barred by delay and laches.

Issue (ii): Whether dhotis, saris, chadars, towels, canvas, rags and fents were "cloth manufactured by mills" under the relevant sales tax notification and therefore taxable at the lower rate.

Analysis: The controlling question was whether the goods remained mill-made cloth or had been converted into a different commercial article. Mere size, shape, or suitability for a particular use did not alter their essential character. Dhotis and saris, as well as chadars and towels, were treated as cloth because they came out of the mill without further processing. Canvas remained cloth adapted for specific use. Rags and fents, though irregular or defective, were still fabric and did not cease to be cloth. The earlier authority on printed and cut handloom articles was confined to its own facts and did not govern the present goods.

Conclusion: The articles fell within "cloth manufactured by mills" and were not shown to have been wrongly taxed at the higher rate.

Final Conclusion: The writ claim for refund and quashing of the assessment orders failed both on delay and on merits, and no ground for relief under Article 226 was made out.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods remain "cloth manufactured by mills" if they are simply mill-produced fabric and have not been converted by further processing into a different commercial article; mere adaptability for a particular use or sale in specific sizes does not change their essential character.

---