Belated amendment and unexplained laches can defeat writ relief when assessment is complete and prayers become infructuous.

A belated amendment that introduced new prayers after completion of assessment was treated as a fresh proceeding and rejected as time-barred under section 8(2) of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, because no extension of time was sought and the proposed change was prejudicial to the respondents. The underlying article 226 writ petition also could not be maintained, as its substantive reliefs had become infructuous after assessment and the unexplained delay of about eighteen months amounted to laches. Discretionary writ relief was therefore refused, leaving no basis for interference.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the application for amendment, introducing new prayers after completion of assessment, was maintainable and within limitation under section 8(2) of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987; (ii) whether the original writ application under article 226 of the Constitution of India survived after the assessment was completed and in view of the unexplained delay in approaching the Tribunal.

Issue (i): whether the application for amendment, introducing new prayers after completion of assessment, was maintainable and within limitation under section 8(2) of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987.

Analysis: The amendment application was treated as a fresh proceeding with new prayers rather than a mere formal correction of the existing pleadings. It was filed beyond the statutory period prescribed for moving the Tribunal and no prayer for extension of time was made. The application was also found to be prejudicial to the respondents and unsupported by any extraordinary circumstance justifying the introduction of a new cause in that manner.

Conclusion: The amendment application was not maintainable and was rightly rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the original writ application under article 226 of the Constitution of India survived after the assessment was completed and in view of the unexplained delay in approaching the Tribunal.

Analysis: The substantive reliefs in the writ petition had become infructuous after the assessment was concluded. Independently, the petition was filed nearly eighteen months after the cause of action arose, and the delay was left unexplained. Since relief under article 226 is discretionary, the unexplained laches and the infructuous nature of the main prayers furnished separate grounds for refusing relief.

Conclusion: The original writ application was liable to be dismissed.

Final Conclusion: Both the amendment request and the main writ petition failed, leaving no surviving basis for interference or grant of relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A belated amendment that effectively introduces a new cause of action is not maintainable when barred by limitation, and discretionary writ relief may be refused where the petition is rendered infructuous and the petitioner is guilty of unexplained delay.

---