Refund of sales tax denied where assessments remained valid, delay was unexplained, and the tax was treated as passed on to buyers.

Refund of sales tax was not available where the earlier Supreme Court ruling did not invalidate the charging provision or deprive the State assessments of jurisdiction; at most, the schedule entry was wrongly applied, while the assessments remained final and unchallenged in the prescribed manner. Relief under Article 226 was also declined because the writ petitions were brought after substantial delay without satisfactory explanation, and discretionary relief may be refused for laches. The Court further noted that sales tax is ordinarily an indirect levy passed on to purchasers, so refund would risk unjust enrichment where the tax had likely been recovered from consumers.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petitioners were entitled to refund of sales tax on the footing that the assessments were rendered invalid by the Supreme Court's decision on the nature of the commodities, (ii) whether the writ petitions were barred by delay and laches, and (iii) whether discretionary relief of refund should be denied because the tax was an indirect tax likely passed on to purchasers.

Issue (i): whether the petitioners were entitled to refund of sales tax on the footing that the assessments were rendered invalid by the Supreme Court's decision on the nature of the commodities.

Analysis: The Court held that the earlier Supreme Court decision did not declare any charging provision unconstitutional and did not render the assessments without jurisdiction. The assessments had been made under the taxing machinery of the State Act, remained unchallenged in the prescribed manner, and at most involved application of a wrong entry in the schedule. A refund could be directed only if the assessments were annulled or if the levy itself was ultra vires, which was not the position here.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to refund on this ground, and the challenge failed against them.

Issue (ii): whether the writ petitions were barred by delay and laches.

Analysis: The petitions were filed nearly three years after the relevant Supreme Court decision and long after the assessments had become final. The Court held that relief under Article 226 is discretionary and may be refused where the petitioner is not vigilant. No satisfactory explanation was offered for the delay, and the analogy of limitation for a civil suit did not assist the petitioners in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The petitions were liable to be rejected for undue delay and laches.

Issue (iii): whether discretionary relief of refund should be denied because the tax was an indirect tax likely passed on to purchasers.

Analysis: The Court treated sales tax as an indirect levy ordinarily passed on to consumers. On the probabilities, the petitioners had recovered the tax from purchasers, and granting refund would unjustly enrich them while requiring the State to repay tax collected under valid assessments.

Conclusion: Discretionary refund was rightly refused on this ground as well.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions did not disclose any entitlement to refund or other relief, and the Court declined to interfere with the final assessments.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will not order refund of tax where the assessment remains valid and final, the levy is not shown to be ultra vires, and the petitioner is guilty of unexplained delay or seeks a discretionary refund of an indirect tax likely passed on to others.

---