2006 (8) TMI 530 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Detention of goods under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
2. Alleged misstatement and concealment of facts by the petitioner.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. Conduct of the petitioner in approaching the court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Detention of Goods under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the release of goods detained under Section 51(6)(b) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The petitioner, a sole proprietorship registered under the Act, had imported goods from M/s. Raj Enterprises, Ghaziabad. Despite presenting the invoice and goods receipt at the Information Collection Centre (ICC), the goods were detained. The petitioner offered surety bonds/bank guarantees for the release, which were declined by the detaining officer.

2. Alleged Misstatement and Concealment of Facts by the Petitioner:
The respondents claimed the petitioner misled the court by misstating and concealing facts. The vehicle carrying the goods initially presented documents indicating the goods were from Rurkela, not Ghaziabad. The driver fled, leaving behind photocopies of documents. Subsequent inquiries revealed that the goods had indeed moved from Rurkela, and the registration certificate of M/s. Raj Enterprises, Ghaziabad, was canceled since October 22, 1999, indicating the firm was not functional. The petitioner did not counter these allegations.

3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
The High Court emphasized its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226, which mandates that petitioners must come with clean hands. The court cited several precedents, including Hari Narain v. Badri Das, where the Supreme Court revoked leave due to misstatements by the appellant, and Welcome Hotel v. State of Andhra Pradesh, where misleading the court warranted dismissal of the petition.

4. Conduct of the Petitioner in Approaching the Court:
The court noted the petitioner's conduct in misleading the court by not disclosing material facts. It referenced multiple cases, including S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, where fraud on the court led to dismissal of the case, and Nand Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, where non-disclosure of facts resulted in dismissal without merits consideration. The High Court reiterated that such conduct disentitles the petitioner from relief.

Conclusion:
Given the petitioner's contumacious conduct and failure to disclose material facts, the court declined to entertain the petition under its extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. The petitioner sought to withdraw the petition, which the court allowed, imposing a cost of Rs. 20,000 payable to the State Legal Services Authority, U.T. Chandigarh, to be deposited within two weeks. Failure to do so would result in further appropriate orders from the court.