Writ Jurisdiction Discretionary, To Be Exercised For Petitioners Acting In Good Faith, With Clean Hands: Allahabad High Court
While dealing with a petition against cancellation of GST registration, the Allahabad High Court 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. The Court held that once there is concealment of facts, writ petition is liable to be dismissed without any relief to...
While dealing with a petition against cancellation of GST registration, the Allahabad High Court 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. The Court held that once there is concealment of facts, writ petition is liable to be dismissed without any relief to the petitioner.
“Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary jurisdiction which is to be exercised for petitioners who are acting in a good faith. The principle of uberrima fides requires a party that comes to a Court to act in utmost good faith. The above 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,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.
Petitioner's GST registration was cancelled on grounds that on physical verification of the premises, no activity was found. It was alleged that the Officers had tried to contact the proprietor of the petitioner firm, however, there was no response. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, and after considering the reply, GST registration was cancelled. Petitioner approached the High Court against the cancellation of its GST registration.
Counsel for respondent submitted that upon verification, as directed by the Court, it was found that the petitioner had obtained a fresh GST registration before filing of the writ petition.
The Court observed that the fact of new registration was neither disclosed in the petition nor disclosed by the counsel for petitioner at the time of arguments.
Justice Saraf relied on his earlier judgment in Calcutta High Court in 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.”
The Court held that there was suppression of material facts by the petitioner and the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hand to warrant any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Case Title: M/S Genius Ortho Industries vs. Union Of India And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 137 [Writ Tax No. 542 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 137