Writ for tax refund barred by laches where no double taxation or personal grievance was shown.

Unexplained delay can bar a writ challenge to tax recovery, especially where a civil suit for refund was available; on the facts, a challenge filed ten years after recovery was treated as stale and not maintainable in writ jurisdiction. The India-Pakistan double taxation arrangement applied only where the same income was actually liable to tax in both Dominions, and that condition was not shown because no Pakistani assessment or tax was established; no abatement or refund arose. A registered firm without an independent tax burden or enforceable personal grievance lacked locus standi to claim refund, so the refund claim failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition challenging recovery of tax could be entertained after inordinate delay and in the presence of an alternative remedy; (ii) whether the India-Pakistan double taxation arrangement entitled the assessee to abatement or refund in the facts of the case; (iii) whether the registered firm had any enforceable grievance or locus standi to claim refund.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition challenging recovery of tax could be entertained after inordinate delay and in the presence of an alternative remedy

Analysis: The recovery had been made in 1950, while the writ was filed only in 1960, with no satisfactory explanation for the delay. The availability of a civil suit for refund was also relevant. In such circumstances, the writ court was not required to entertain the challenge after such lapse of time.

Conclusion: The writ petition was rightly treated as barred by laches and was not maintainable in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): whether the India-Pakistan double taxation arrangement entitled the assessee to abatement or refund in the facts of the case

Analysis: The arrangement operated where the same income was in fact liable to tax in both Dominions. On the facts, the disputed income arose when the relevant territories were still part of British India, the assessee was assessed at its principal place of business in Amritsar, and no assessment or tax in Pakistan was shown. The conditions for abatement under the agreement were therefore absent.

Conclusion: No abatement or refund was payable under the double taxation arrangement.

Issue (iii): whether the registered firm had any enforceable grievance or locus standi to claim refund

Analysis: The firm itself was a registered firm and did not bear tax in the manner of an unregistered assessee; the actual tax consequence, if any, related to the individual partners in their separate assessments. The firm had no independent tax burden shown on the record and therefore no enforceable grievance before the court.

Conclusion: The firm lacked a sufficient grievance to maintain the claim for refund.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the challenge was stale, the double taxation provisions were inapplicable on the facts, and the appellant-firm had no sustainable basis to demand refund.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ for refund of tax will not be entertained after unexplained and inordinate delay, particularly where the claimant cannot show actual double taxation or any legally enforceable personal grievance arising from the impugned recovery.

---