Delay and laches can bar stale VAT refund claims where later representations do not revive the original cause of action.

Unexplained delay can defeat a writ claim for refund and interest under Article 226, especially where the refund right had crystallised earlier and the claim is monetary in character. The Bombay HC noted that the petitioner had not shown due compliance with Section 18 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 concerning change of name or business ownership, and that alleged non-service of the refund rejection order did not keep the matter alive. Later RTI replies and repeated representations were treated as attempts to revive a stale claim and did not create a fresh cause of action. The petition was therefore barred by delay and laches, and discretionary writ relief was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition seeking refund and interest under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, and whether later communications and representations revived the cause of action.

Analysis: The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary, and unexplained or unreasonable delay may justify refusal of relief, particularly in a refund claim of monetary character. The Court found that the right to seek refund had crystallised much earlier, that the petitioner had not shown due compliance with Section 18 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 regarding change of name or business ownership, and that the alleged non-service of the refund rejection order did not keep the dispute alive. The subsequent RTI response and later representations were held to be attempts to resurrect a stale claim and did not create a fresh cause of action. Repeated representations and belated efforts to obtain information were held insufficient to justify the delay.

Conclusion: The writ petition was barred by delay and laches and was not fit for exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: In a stale refund claim, later representations or an RTI response do not revive the original cause of action, and unreasonable delay may justify refusal of discretionary relief under Article 226.

---