Fraud in sales tax registration can bar writ interference when the record supports the authority's action.

Writ interference under Article 226 is not warranted where the pleadings and affidavit material disclose serious indicia of fraud in obtaining sales tax registration. The material here showed false statements concerning residence, business activity, registration particulars, purchases and supporting documents, and indicated that the registration had been procured by furnishing false information. On that factual basis, the sales tax authorities' action was supported by the record then available, and the extraordinary writ jurisdiction was declined. The writ petition was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference under writ jurisdiction was warranted against the sales tax authorities' action based on alleged fraudulent registration and false turnover declarations.

Analysis: The petition was examined on the basis of the pleadings and affidavit material, which disclosed serious indicia of fraud, including false statements regarding residence, business activities, registration particulars, purchases, and supporting documents. The material also indicated that the petitioner had obtained the sales tax registration by furnishing false information and that the authority's action was supported by the factual record then available. In these circumstances, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not to be invoked for interference.

Conclusion: Interference was not warranted and the writ petition was rejected.

---