9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, 2024. Therefore, petitioner has not come with clean hands before this Court. The writ petition is, therefore, fit to be dismissed only on the basis of the principles suppressio veri; suggestio falsi. The proceedings under writ jurisdiction of such nature cannot be entertained at the behest of a party who has indulged in suppression of fact. Reliance is placed on the opinion of the Apex Court in K Jayaram and Others Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Ors., [2021 (12) TMI 1439 - SUPREME COURT], paragraphs 10, 11, 13 & 14 which are quoted hereunder. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything while invoking the extraordinary, equitable and discretionary remedy of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Conclusion - A petitioner seeking relief under Article 226 must disclose all material facts and come with clean hands. Suppression of material facts is a ground for dismissal of a writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of suppressio veri; suggestio falsi, as the petitioner had not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ements in reply to the averments made in the writ petition that the order of assessment was passed by the Superintendent of Taxes for the period 2009-2010 to 2013-14 on 12th December, 2014. On 12th December, 2014, the Superintendent of Taxes also passed an order of assessment in respect of the Central Sales Tax amount. Petitioner challenged the order of assessment before the Appellate Authority under Section 69 of the TVAT Act, 2004 and also the order passed under the Central Sales Tax Act. The Appellate Authority set aside the assessment order dated 12th December, 2014 vide its order dated 28th August, 2015 both under TVAT Act as well as CST Act and remanded the matter to the concerned charge for passing a speaking order. Pursuant to such direction, the Superintendent of Taxes passed a fresh order dated 5th December, 2015. On 24th September, 2019 the statutory Revisional Authority took suo-moto cognizance under Section 70 (1) of the TVAT Act and the dealer was served notice regarding the revision case bearing Case No. 06/CH-VI/2019. The Revisional Authority took suo-moto cognizance of the matter on the basis of audit observation by which it was stated that the dealer in his tradin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts recorded in the foregoing paragraphs that the writ petitioner approached this Court without making any mention or reference of the suo-moto revisional proceedings by raising a plea of time bar under Section 36 (1) of the TVAT Act, 2004 for reopening of assessment vide notice dated 18th October, 2024. This Court being persuaded by the legal plea also passed an interim order staying further proceedings pursuant to the impugned show-cause notice. The petitioner did not even care to challenge the order of the revisional authority dated 27th October, 2022 though it was specifically mentioned in the impugned notice dated 18th October, 2024. Therefore, petitioner has not come with clean hands before this Court. The writ petition is, therefore, fit to be dismissed only on the basis of the principles suppressio veri; suggestio falsi. The proceedings under writ jurisdiction of such nature cannot be entertained at the behest of a party who has indulged in suppression of fact. [8] Reliance is placed on the opinion of the Apex Court in K Jayaram and Others Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Ors., reported in (2022) 12 SCC 815, paragraphs 10, 11, 13 & 14 which are quoted hereunder. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. 35. The underlying object has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in the leading case of R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners [R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, (1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (KB & CA)] in the following words : (KB p. 514) '... it has been for many years the rule of the court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the court to obtain relief on an ex-parte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s only been set in motion by means of a misleading affidavit.' 38. The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play "hide and seek" or to "pick and choose" the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because "the court knows law but not facts". 39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commissioners [R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, (1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (KB & CA)] is kept in mind, an applicant who does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
