Article 226 challenge to a stale tax levy may lie in principle, but unexplained delay can defeat refund relief.

Finality of assessment orders does not, by itself, bar a constitutional challenge under Article 226 where the levy is alleged to be illegal and beyond taxing power; however, writ relief remains discretionary and subject to settled limits. Unexplained laches and prolonged failure to pursue statutory appellate remedies can justify ? Need English. Let's craft carefully. Lack of statutory duty also defeats mandamus for refund against the tax authority. The commentary emphasises that equity cannot revive a stale claim where the legal remedy was slept upon for years, and that a void levy is not validated merely by non-exhaustion of appeals.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether assessment orders that had attained finality without exhaustion of statutory remedies could nevertheless be challenged under Article 226 on the ground that the levy was illegal and beyond jurisdiction. (ii) Whether the assessee's long delay and failure to pursue the statutory appellate remedies barred exercise of writ jurisdiction and relief by way of refund or mandamus against the Central Board of Direct Taxes.

Issue (i): Whether assessment orders that had attained finality without exhaustion of statutory remedies could nevertheless be challenged under Article 226 on the ground that the levy was illegal and beyond jurisdiction.

Analysis: The availability of constitutional writ relief was not excluded merely because the assessment orders had become final under the taxing statute. A levy on agricultural income, if truly beyond the taxing power, could be attacked as illegal notwithstanding absence of statutory appeals. The mere fact that an order was not challenged within the statutory hierarchy did not convert an inherently void levy into a lawful one. At the same time, constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 remained discretionary and subject to settled limitations.

Conclusion: The writ jurisdiction was not barred in principle by statutory finality alone, but the availability of that jurisdiction did not by itself entitle the assessee to relief.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee's long delay and failure to pursue the statutory appellate remedies barred exercise of writ jurisdiction and relief by way of refund or mandamus against the Central Board of Direct Taxes.

Analysis: The assessee had allowed the assessment orders to stand for many years and sought writ relief only after an extended lapse of time. Such unexplained laches furnished a sufficient ground for refusing discretionary relief under Article 226. No statutory duty was shown to be cast upon the Central Board of Direct Taxes to grant refund in such circumstances, and without a legal duty there could be no mandamus. The court also emphasized that notions of equity could not override the statute where the legal remedy had been slept upon for an inordinate period.

Conclusion: The assessee was disentitled to writ relief by laches, and no mandamus for refund could issue against the Central Board of Direct Taxes.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the discretionary constitutional remedy was refused on account of gross delay, and the tax authority was under no enforceable statutory obligation to order refund.

Ratio Decidendi: Finality of assessment orders does not by itself bar constitutional challenge to an allegedly illegal levy, but writ relief will ordinarily be denied where the assessee is guilty of unexplained laches and no statutory duty exists to support mandamus for refund.

---