2019 (12) TMI 475

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he nature of mandamus commanding respondents-4 and 5 to refund amount of Service Tax to the tune of Rs. 1,20,524/- deposited by petitioners as per demand raised by respondent-5 vide final calculation chart dated 5.4.2017. 3. Petitioners are aggrieved by levy of Service Tax on services in relation to construction of residential complex as defined under Section 65(105)(zzzh) of the Finance Act, 1994. According to learned counsel for petitioner levy of Service Tax on construction of residential complex was declared invalid by Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 2235 of 2011 (Suresh Kumar Bansal Vs. Union of India and others) decided on 03.06.2016. Court in para-55 held as under : "In view of the above, we negate the challenge to insertion ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6 rendered by Delhi High Court, in our view cannot be extended to petitioners of this case. 8. Delay and laches constitute substantial reason for disentitling relief in equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Pan Singh and others J.T. 2007(4) SC 253, Court observed that after a long time writ petition should not have been entertained even if petitioners are similarly situated and discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approached the Court after a long time. It was held that delay and jlaches were relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction. In M/s Lipton India Ltd. and others vs. Union jof India and others, J.T. 1994(6) SC 71 and....