Delay, laches, and strict compliance with composition conditions defeated the writ challenge to a fiscal assessment.

Writ relief against a fiscal assessment was declined where the petitioner remained silent for years after service of the appellate order, leaving the challenge barred by delay and laches. The Court also held that composition benefit under section 4(7)(d) required strict compliance with the statutory conditions, including prior filing of Form VAT 250, and the petitioner could not rely on omission of section 4(7)(c) or on the limited memo/circular relief meant for qualifying unregistered apartment builders. A limitation plea for part of the assessment period, involving mixed questions of fact and law, was not entertained in writ jurisdiction and the assessment and recovery notice remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches arising from the long silence after service of the appellate order; (ii) whether the petitioner was entitled to composition treatment under section 4(7)(d) and could resist the assessment by relying on omission of section 4(7)(c) and the Government memo/circular granting limited relief to unregistered apartment builders; and (iii) whether the plea of limitation for part of the assessment period could be entertained in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches arising from the long silence after service of the appellate order.

Analysis: The writ petition was filed nearly five years after the assessment order and about four years after dismissal of the statutory appeal. The record showed that the appeal had been filed belatedly and without compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit and fee requirements, that notices were issued by the appellate authority, and that the order dismissing the appeal was served on the petitioner's authorised representative. The petitioner offered no explanation in the writ affidavit for this service and raised the illness of the representative only later. In these circumstances, the petitioner could not be permitted to remain silent for years and then invoke writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was barred by delay and laches and was liable to be rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to composition treatment under section 4(7)(d) and could resist the assessment by relying on omission of section 4(7)(c) and the Government memo/circular granting limited relief to unregistered apartment builders.

Analysis: The challenge based on omission of section 4(7)(c) was not raised before the assessing authority or in the writ affidavit and, in any event, the assessment period included a span when that provision was still in force. The Government memo and the circular extended only a one-time benefit to unregistered builders who came forward, obtained registration, and paid tax at the prescribed rate for transactions up to 17.06.2011. The petitioner did not satisfy those conditions. Further, composition under section 4(7)(d) was subject to prescribed conditions, and Rule 17.4 required the dealer to notify the authority in Form VAT 250 before commencement of the work. The petitioner had not filed Form VAT 250 before commencement and therefore had no basis to claim the composition benefit.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to composition relief or to the benefit of the memo and circular, and the assessment could not be invalidated on the ground that section 4(7)(c) had been omitted.

Issue (iii): Whether the plea that part of the assessment was barred by limitation could be entertained in the writ petition.

Analysis: The contention on limitation depended on whether there had been suppression and whether the extended period applied, both of which were mixed questions of fact and law. Those issues ought to have been pursued in a proper and timely statutory appeal, which the petitioner failed to do. In the absence of a sustainable challenge to the appellate order and with the writ suffering from delay, the Court declined to examine that plea on merits.

Conclusion: The limitation plea was not entertained and did not aid the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The assessment, the dismissal of the statutory appeal, and the consequential recovery notice were left undisturbed, and the writ petition failed in entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ relief will not be granted against fiscal assessments where the petitioner sleeps over the matter after service of the appellate order, and composition benefits under a statutory scheme can be claimed only by strict compliance with the prescribed preconditions, including timely exercise of the option.

---