The Allahabad High Court, while dismissing a petition due to suppression of material facts held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can only be exercised for a petitioner who has approached the Court in good faith and with clean hands and once there is concealment of facts, writ petition is liable to be dismissed without any relief to the petitioner.
Brief Facts:
The present petition was filed under Article 226 of the constitution wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Joint Commissioner, C.G.S.T. (Appeal), Meerut cancelling its GST registration. The ground for cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner was that upon physical verification, it was found by the authorities that no business activity was being carried out at the said premises. Authorities also called the proprietor on several occasions but his phone was switched off and he did not pick up the calls. A show cause notice was issued by the Department, which was replied to by the petitioner and subsequently, the order cancelling the registration was passed. Against the order cancelling registration, the petitioner went up in appeal and the said appeal was also dismissed after passing a detailed order.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that there has been suppression of material fact, as the petitioner has not revealed before this Court that a new registration was obtained by the petitioner subsequent to the cancellation of the earlier registration.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that a new registration had been obtained by the petitioner and it was found that the factory was operational and the proprietor informed the authorities that he had obtained a new registration prior to filing of the writ petition. It was stated by the court that having obtained a new registration was a material fact that should have been brought into the knowledge of the court and the Court was hoodwinked by the petitioner in passing an order for verification of the premises by the authorities and further the fact that neither was there any averment in the writ petition nor the counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that a new registration has been obtained resulted in sheer wastage of time of the authorities in carrying out the second verification.
The court further referred to the decision in the case of Bhriguram De v. State of West Bengal and others, wherein it was held that “as seen from the various judgments discussed above, the Indian and English Courts have consistently taken the view that one who approaches the Court must come with clean hands. It is the bounden duty of the Court to keep the stream of justice absolutely clean. Anyone who approaches must give full and fair disclosure of all the materials. The Courts must not allow anyone to abuse the court process. In case the petitioner conceals anything that is known to be material such an action would lead to an inference of fraud, and even if not fraud, definitely would lead to a presumption that the petitioner has not approached the court with clean hands.”
It was stated by the court that Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary jurisdiction which is to be exercised for petitioners who are acting in good faith and the principle of uberrima fides requires a party that comes to a Court to act in utmost good faith and the principle is the genesis of the expectation of the Court to pass orders at the behest of the petitioner who has approached the Court with clean hands. The moment this trust is broken and it is discovered that there is suppression of material facts, the Court is bound to dismiss the said petition without granting any relief whatsoever to the petitioner.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition on the grounds of suppression of material facts.
Case Title: M/S Genius Ortho Industries vs Union of India And Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shekhar B. Saraf
Case No.: WRIT TAX No. - 542 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Hari Shanker Srivastava and Nikhil Srivastava
Advocate for the Respondent: Sudarshan Singh and Amit Mahajan
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
