Sharda Construction vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches. The cause of action for the petitioner accrued in 2017, but the writ petition was filed in October 2024, after approaching the respondents in April 2024. The supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner contained documents pertaining to the merits of the refund claim but did not offer any justification or explanation for the considerable delay in filing the writ petition. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's pronouncements in State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. R.K. Zalpuri and City and Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala, which emphasize the importance of examining delay and laches when exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court found that the petitioner had not made out a case for condoning the delay or ignoring the laches. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed on these grounds.

Facts

The petitioner, Sharda Construction, sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund 12% GST paid under an agreement dated 30.11.2014. The work was completed prior to the enforcement of the GST Act, 2017. The petitioner claimed a refund of Rs. 5,36,243/- for the difference in GST from RA bills No. 11 to 15. The petitioner approached the respondents in April 2024 and filed the writ petition in October 2024. The petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit with documents, including the 15th & Final Bill approved on 31.01.2020 and a previous judgment, but these were not related to condoning the delay. The Court noted that the cause of action accrued in 2017.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition suffers from delay and laches, thereby disentitling the petitioner from seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, as per the principles laid down in State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. R.K. Zalpuri and City and Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala? The petitioner argued that the delay, if any, should be overlooked due to the merits of the case and the subsequent filing of documents. The petitioner contended that the refund claim was pending and they were suffering due to the respondents' inaction. The petitioner relied on the supplementary affidavit and annexed documents to support their claim for refund. The respondents, through their counsel, implicitly argued that the significant delay in approaching the court, with the cause of action arising in 2017 and the petition filed in 2024, barred the petitioner from equitable relief. They highlighted that the submitted documents did not address the delay and laches.