Delay and laches bar refund relief in writ jurisdiction where tax recovery interests and arrears weigh against discretionary mandamus.

Refund claims under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act must be pursued within a reasonable time, and a writ court will not grant mandamus for refund and interest where the assessee remains inactive for years. Although section 33B contemplated refund when an amount became due, the Court treated the delayed claim as hit by laches and noted that time-barred or unenforceable claims are not legally recoverable. The existence of pending tax arrears and the public interest in tax recovery also weighed against discretionary relief. The refund and interest sought in writ jurisdiction were therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to a writ of mandamus directing refund of disputed tax with interest after an inordinate delay, in the face of laches and pending tax arrears.

Analysis: The claimed refund arose from amounts paid during assessment and appellate proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Although the assessing authority had not passed consequential orders within the period contemplated by section 24A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, the petitioners approached the writ court only after a long lapse of time. The statutory obligation to refund under section 33B of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 applies when an amount becomes due to the assessee, but the Court held that such relief cannot be claimed after the assessee remains inactive for years. Relying on the principle that time-barred or unenforceable claims are not amounts legally recoverable, the Court held that refund claims raised after excessive delay are hit by laches and do not justify the exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction. The existence of substantial arrears and the public interest involved in tax recovery also weighed against granting relief.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to the refund and interest sought in writ jurisdiction, and the claim was rejected as barred by delay and laches.

---