Belated tax recovery challenge and unsupported review under writ jurisdiction were rejected for lack of delay explanation and review grounds.

A writ challenge to tax recovery was held unsustainable where the assessee had not sought quashing of the underlying assessment orders and approached the court after inordinate, unexplained delay. The court treated the belated attempt to dispute liability as barred by lack of due diligence. It also held that review of an Article 226 order is confined to recognised review grounds under the civil procedure framework, and could not be granted without new matter, important evidence, or an error apparent on the face of the record. The review order was therefore found impermissible.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition could be entertained after an inordinate delay in challenging the recovery action and the underlying assessment-related liability. (ii) Whether the order dismissing the writ petition could validly be reviewed in the absence of any ground recognized for review under the governing procedural law.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition could be entertained after an inordinate delay in challenging the recovery action and the underlying assessment-related liability.

Analysis: The writ petition did not seek quashing of the assessment orders and was directed only against recovery of the tax amount. The challenge came long after the relevant assessment and appellate orders, with no satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Court treated the attempt to question the liability at that stage as barred by inordinate delay and lack of due diligence.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the order dismissing the writ petition could validly be reviewed in the absence of any ground recognized for review under the governing procedural law.

Analysis: Review of an order under Article 226 was held to be available only on grounds analogous to those governing review under the Code of Civil Procedure. No new and important matter or evidence was shown, the alleged ignorance of the appellate order was not accepted, and no error apparent on the face of the record was established. The Court therefore found that the review was impermissible.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on the facts presented, and the order allowing review was unsustainable, so the appellate court restored dismissal of the writ relief sought by the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ challenge to tax recovery cannot be entertained after unexplained inordinate delay, and review of an order under Article 226 lies only on recognized review grounds, including discovery of new matter or an error apparent on the face of the record.

---