Revisional jurisdiction cannot test vires, and writ relief may be refused for suppression of facts and delayed legal objections.

Under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under section 38 does not extend to examining the vires of provisions in the Act or the Rules. In addition, discretionary relief under article 226 may be declined where the assessee suppresses material facts, including prior conditional stay proceedings and subsequent default, or fails to raise an available legal point at the proper stage. The Court treated both the statutory jurisdiction point and the petitioner's conduct as reasons to reject writ relief, and the dismissal of the writ petition was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 38 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, could examine the vires of a provision in the Act or the Rules; and (ii) whether the writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution was maintainable in view of the assessee's conduct and prior opportunity to raise the point.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 38 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, could examine the vires of a provision in the Act or the Rules.

Analysis: The earlier Supreme Court decision relied on was held to apply directly to revisional proceedings under the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The Court treated that authority as concluding that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under the Act did not extend to adjudicating the vires of statutory provisions.

Conclusion: The High Court could not go into the vires of a provision in the Act or the Rules in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution was maintainable in view of the assessee's conduct and prior opportunity to raise the point.

Analysis: The Court found that the assessee had not approached the Court with clean hands, having omitted material facts relating to the conditional stay obtained earlier and the subsequent default leading to revenue recovery proceedings. The Court also held that the relevant legal point could and should have been raised earlier in the tax proceedings, and that this omission was an additional reason to refuse discretionary relief.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for discretionary relief under article 226 and was liable to be rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both jurisdictional and discretionary grounds, and the dismissal of the writ petition was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction under the Sales Tax Act cannot examine the vires of the Act or Rules, and discretionary writ relief under article 226 may be refused where the petitioner suppresses material facts or omits to raise an available point at the proper stage.

---