Refund claims in writ jurisdiction fail where tax liability was never disputed in assessment and the challenge is brought after inordinate delay.

Refund of sales tax allegedly paid under mistake was not available in writ jurisdiction where the assessee had not disputed liability or identified the relevant turnover during assessment, had allowed the assessments to attain finality, and had not exhausted the statutory remedy. The Court reiterated that disputed factual questions are ordinarily not examined under Article 226 and must be pursued before the tax authorities. The refund claim was also held stale, because the writ petitions were filed after an inordinate delay and the later rectification applications did not revive the claim. On these grounds, no refund or other relief could be granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refund of sales tax allegedly paid under mistake could be granted in writ jurisdiction when the assessee had not disputed liability or identified the relevant turnover in the assessment proceedings and had not pursued the statutory remedy. (ii) Whether the refund claim was barred by laches and delay.

Issue (i): Whether refund of sales tax allegedly paid under mistake could be granted in writ jurisdiction when the assessee had not disputed liability or identified the relevant turnover in the assessment proceedings and had not pursued the statutory remedy.

Analysis: The returns and assessment proceedings did not disclose which part of the turnover related to goods supplied free of cost by the Railways, and no objection to levy was raised at the assessment stage. The assessments were allowed to attain finality, save for one year in which the point was not raised in appeal. The Court reiterated that disputed questions of fact are ordinarily not examined in writ proceedings and must be pursued before the statutory authorities. A claim for refund based on alleged mistaken payment could not be used to bypass the assessment machinery or to seek factual adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The claim for refund could not be entertained in writ jurisdiction on this ground, and the assessee was not entitled to relief.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim was barred by laches and delay.

Analysis: The assessment orders were passed years before the writ petitions were filed, and the rectification applications were made only much later. The Court applied the settled principle that refund claims under writ jurisdiction must be pursued within a reasonable time, and that delay comparable to or exceeding the period prescribed by the Limitation Act ordinarily weighs against relief. On the facts, the petitions were filed after an inordinate lapse of time, and the earlier rectification proceedings did not revive the stale claim.

Conclusion: The refund claim was barred by laches and delay.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions did not merit interference, and no refund or other relief could be granted.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will not grant refund of tax allegedly paid under mistake where the assessee failed to raise the factual and legal objection in assessment proceedings, allowed the assessments to attain finality, and approached the Court after inordinate delay without exhausting the statutory remedy.

---