https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367897 A second writ petition seeking refund of seized cash was held not maintainable because the petitioner had not executed the earlier writ order under Rule 647 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, had not challenged the later assessment order, and had not pursued remedies under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court treated the later departmental communications as part of the same continuing dispute and found no fresh cause of action. It reiterated that writ jurisdiction is equitable and discretionary, and cannot be used to revive a stale monetary claim after prolonged inaction. The petition was therefore barred by delay and laches. en-us Mon, 17 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Sep 2018 06:50:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367897 A second writ petition seeking refund of seized cash was held not maintainable because the petitioner had not executed the earlier writ order under Rule 647 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, had not challenged the later assessment order, and had not pursued remedies under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court treated the later departmental communications as part of the same continuing dispute and found no fresh cause of action. It reiterated that writ jurisdiction is equitable and discretionary, and cannot be used to revive a stale monetary claim after prolonged inaction. The petition was therefore barred by delay and laches. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 17 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367897