Delay and laches can defeat writ relief, and refund set-off requires prior adjudication that a refund is due.

Unexplained delay and laches can bar invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 where the petitioner has not acted with due diligence, and time spent pursuing an unavailable remedy will not justify the lapse. The document also states that section 49E of the Income-tax Act, 1922 permits set-off only after a refund has been conclusively adjudicated as due under the Act; a mere claim of refundable amounts is insufficient. On the stated facts, no prior adjudication establishing a refund existed, so the statutory condition for set-off was not met.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petition was liable to be dismissed for delay and laches in invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226; (ii) Whether the petitioner could invoke section 49E of the Income-tax Act, 1922 to seek set-off of alleged refund amounts against outstanding tax demand without a prior adjudication that a refund was due.

Issue (i): Whether the petition was liable to be dismissed for delay and laches in invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Analysis: The petition challenged rejection of refund or set-off relief after a substantial lapse of time. The Court held that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily exercised only where the petitioner has acted with due diligence. The delay remained unexplained, and time spent in pursuing a remedy not shown to be available under the statute could not be counted as a satisfactory explanation.

Conclusion: The petition was barred by delay and laches and was not maintainable in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner could invoke section 49E of the Income-tax Act, 1922 to seek set-off of alleged refund amounts against outstanding tax demand without a prior adjudication that a refund was due.

Analysis: Section 49E permits set-off only where a refund is already due under the Act. The expression "refund is to be due" was treated as requiring a prior adjudication establishing that an amount is refundable. On the facts, no such adjudication in favour of the petitioner existed, so the statutory condition for set-off was absent.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to set-off under section 49E.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed both on the ground of unexplained delay and on the merits, because the statutory prerequisite for claiming set-off of refund was not satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition under Article 226 may be refused for unexplained delay, and set-off under section 49E of the Income-tax Act, 1922 is available only after a refund has been conclusively found due under the Act.

---