Equity - Legality of service tax was to be determined forperiod July 9, 2004 to March 31, 2006 - The validity of demandwas confirmed by the Joint Commissioner of service tax - Nostatutory appeal filed by the appellant against the order - Further.appellant made payments of service tax - However. appellant was_aware that there were numerous other litigation pending againstservice tax - Jn those other litigation, it was held that service taxwas not payable in absence of appropriate provision at the relevanttime and it became payable only w.e.f April 18, 2006, when section66A was inserted - Pursuant thereto, writ Petition was filed by theappellant and same was dismissed as barred by delay and /aches -Held: The legal position which is settled is that this service tax wasnot payable for the period in question inasmuch as such a liabilityarose w.ef: April 18, 2006 - This legal position is not confined toonly those who approached the Court but is a declaration of law -It can be treated as judgement in rem - Jn instant case, equities wouldbe balanced by not insisting on payment of penalty and interest -Appellant approached belatedly, thus may not be entitled to refundof service tax already paid but at the same time, the appellant shouldnot be called upon to pay any interest and penalty levied on a taxwhich was not payable in law - Finance Act, 1994 - s.66A.Delay/Laches - Validity of dPTand of service tax challengedafter four years - Appellant received a show cause notice for non-payment of service tax - Appellant contested the said show causeG notice and challenged the legality of service tax - Validity of demandwas confirmed by the Joint Commissioner of service tax - Nostatutory appeal filed by the appellant against the order - Appellantwas aware that there were numerous other litigation pending - Inthose other litigation, it was held that service tax was not payable~ Pursuant thereto writ Petition filed by the appellant, but was dismissed as barred by delay and /aches of four years -::- l)division. Bench also concurred, thereby affirming the order - Held: After.Joint Commissioner had passed the order. no statutory appeal waspreferred by the appellant challenging the order - When appellanthad not challenged the demand and was merely watching the ·proceedings in other similar cases, the decision in those cases cannot famish any cause of action to the appellant to file the writ petition- Therefore, whenever it appears that the claimants lost time orwhiled it away and did not rise to the occasion in time for filing the·writ petitions, then in such cases, the court should be very slow ingranting the relief to the incumbent- Constitution of India -Art.226.