Writ relief and sales tax amendment power: suppression of material facts bars Article 226 relief, while section 7(4) remains valid.

Relief under Article 226 may be declined where the petitioner suppresses material facts, omits candour about notices received, and withholds the fact that statutory revisional proceedings are pending; the writ remedy was treated as improperly invoked in those circumstances. Section 7(4) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was also described as valid, because the amendment power applied uniformly to registered dealers, did not discriminate under Article 14, and did not impose an unreasonable restriction under Article 19(1)(g) when exercised subject to statutory safeguards and revisionary supervision. The analysis therefore supports refusal of writ relief and upholds the constitutional validity of the provision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was liable to fail because the appellant had suppressed material facts and had not candidly disclosed that it had ignored notices and had also pursued statutory remedies before the tax authorities. (ii) Whether section 7(4) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was invalid as being contrary to Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was liable to fail because the appellant had suppressed material facts and had not candidly disclosed that it had ignored notices and had also pursued statutory remedies before the tax authorities.

Analysis: Relief under Article 226 is discretionary and is ordinarily unavailable where the applicant withholds material facts or presents an incomplete and misleading account of events. The appellant had received notices from the taxing authorities, did not appear before them, and also failed to disclose that it had invoked the statutory revisional remedy and that the matter was still pending before the Commissioner when the writ petition was moved. The omission was treated as a serious lack of candour, and the existence of an unexhausted statutory course of redress strengthened the objection to the maintainability of the writ petition.

Conclusion: The writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of suppression of material facts and impropriety in invoking writ jurisdiction while statutory proceedings were still pending.

Issue (ii): Whether section 7(4) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was invalid as being contrary to Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The power of amendment under section 7(4) applied uniformly to all registered dealers and did not discriminate between equals, so Article 14 was not offended. Nor did the provision impose an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g), because the withdrawal of a tax exemption is not a denial of a fundamental right to trade without incidence of tax, and the power was controlled by statutory safeguards and revisionary supervision. The provision was therefore not comparable to an unrestricted licensing power vested in a single authority.

Conclusion: Section 7(4) was held to be valid and not unconstitutional under Articles 14 or 19.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the order of dismissal was affirmed, the Court holding that the writ remedy was improperly invoked on a misleading and incomplete disclosure and that the impugned statutory provision was constitutionally valid.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court may refuse relief where the applicant suppresses material facts or withholds candour, and a statutory power of amendment affecting tax exemption is not unconstitutional if it operates uniformly and is subject to legal safeguards.

---