Court dismisses petition challenging sales tax clearance requirements due to petitioners' non-response to notices and lack of credibility.

The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners challenging the validity of notices seeking a sales tax clearance certificate for licensing. The court found the petitioners had not responded to the notices before approaching the court, leading to the premature dismissal of the petition. Additionally, the petitioners' failure to pay sales tax arrears and their selective legal actions undermined their credibility. The court emphasized the importance of timely disclosure of facts and fair representation, imposing a cost on the petitioners for deliberate suppression of material facts.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of notices dated March 19, 2008 issued by the first respondent.
2. Requirement of a sales tax clearance certificate for licensing.
3. Consideration of representations submitted by the petitioners.
4. Suppression of material facts by the petitioners.
5. Timeliness of approaching the court with the writ petition.
6. Invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners challenged the validity of notices dated March 19, 2008, issued by the first respondent, seeking a sales tax clearance certificate for licensing. The court observed that the notices were merely a request for the certificate and not a final decision. The petitioners failed to respond to the notices before approaching the court, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition as premature.

2. The petitioners, holding CL-2 licenses for vending arrack, contended that the first respondent had no authority to demand a "no-due certificate" from other respondents for licensing. The court found the petitioners in arrears of sales tax for multiple assessment years, highlighting their failure to pay the dues despite running the business. The petitioners' appeal against the tax assessment for certain years had been dismissed earlier, indicating selective legal action.

3. The court addressed the representations submitted by the petitioners seeking consideration from the second and third respondents. The petitioners' failure to disclose the full extent of their tax liabilities and the untimely presentation of the writ petition after submitting representations led to the dismissal of their plea. The court emphasized the importance of disclosing all relevant facts while seeking judicial intervention.

4. The judgment highlighted the petitioners' deliberate suppression of material facts regarding their tax liabilities, portraying them as lacking credibility. The court imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioners for the suppression of facts and directed them to deposit the amount within two weeks to the third respondent.

5. The court criticized the petitioners for rushing to court without allowing the respondents time to consider their representations, emphasizing the need for fairness and transparency in approaching the court. The untimely filing of the writ petition after submitting representations was deemed inappropriate, leading to the dismissal of their plea.

6. The court underscored the importance of invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with honesty and full disclosure of facts. The petitioners' failure to provide complete information and their hasty approach to the court were deemed unacceptable, resulting in the dismissal of their writ petition.

---