Case Law Details
Kishore Jagjivandas Tanna Vs. JDIT (Bombay High Court)
The Department in the Assessment Order expressly refers to this Court’s earlier order in the petitioner’s Writ Petition No.721 of 1988. Still it makes no order of refund. If this is an erroneous order and the Department failed to rectify it, then, the petitioner’s remedy was to challenge it. He does nothing of this kind in the sense he neither avails of the remedies under the I.T. Act, 1961 nor moves any legal forum from September, 2010 to July, 2017. The Department’s letter at page 51 is not the only document to be relied on to maintain a second writ petition. That must be read with all the prior communications and the Assessment Order. So read, it is apparent that what the Department says in 1987-88 is maintained even in 2009-10. Hence, there is no fresh cause of action. The order of this Court is not executed nor is the above Assessment Order challenged in Appeal. The appellate remedy is barred by limitation admittedly. This writ petition cannot be treated an Income Tax Appeal nor can it be entertained by allowing the petitioner to get over the period of limitation prescribed, for filing of an appeal, by the I.T. Act. Either way this writ petition is not maintainable. All the more when we have made reference to the above provision in the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules.
We are unable to agree with the petitioner for the simple reason that this Court is not obliged to entertain belated and stale claims. The writ jurisdiction is not meant to confer benefit or enable litigants who sleep over their rights to derive an advantage for themselves. The writ jurisdiction is equitable and discretionary and if people like the petitioner, who is a businessman and prudent enough to know as to how monies, allegedly retained illegally, have to be recovered promptly and expeditiously. He does nothing despite a favourable order from this Court for more than a decade. Such a litigant does not deserve any relief in our discretionary and equitable jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is extraordinary as well. It is not meant to get over the bar prescribed in the Limitation Act, 1963 for bringing a suit either. This indirect and oblique way of seeking a discretionary relief has to be discouraged. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground of maintainability and delay and laches.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT / ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
1. On this writ petition, on the earlier occasion, we passed the following order:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
