https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413327 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. en-us Tue, 05 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Oct 2021 08:19:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413327 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. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 05 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413327