Material suppression can modify interim relief, but a distinct assessment challenge under an amended turnover rule may still stay pending.

Suppression of an earlier writ petition and its interim order was treated as a serious lapse, justifying modification of interim relief, and the earlier blanket suspension of the impugned memoranda and notifications was vacated. However, the court preserved interim protection for the assessment component applying the amended rule to earlier assessment years, holding that this distinct turnover-computation issue required final adjudication. The Revenue was permitted to redraw the demand and proceed further, including on attachment, on that basis. The objection based on the availability of a statutory appeal and writ maintainability was left open for decision in the main proceeding.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether suppression of the pendency of the earlier writ petition and the connected interim order justified modification of the subsisting interim protection; (ii) whether the assessment and recovery measures founded on the amended rule and the consequential demand required to remain stayed pending disposal of the writ petition; (iii) whether the objection regarding availability of the statutory appeal and maintainability of the writ petition should be decided at this stage.

Issue (i): Whether suppression of the pendency of the earlier writ petition and the connected interim order justified modification of the subsisting interim protection.

Analysis: The earlier proceeding and the order passed therein were found to be material to the controversy, and their non-disclosure was treated as a serious lapse. At the same time, the omission was not treated as warranting total rejection of interim protection in the present matter, because the impact of the suppression had to be assessed in the context of the reliefs sought and the competing interim orders already operating between the parties.

Conclusion: The interim order was modified and the earlier blanket suspension of the impugned memoranda and notifications was vacated.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment and recovery measures founded on the amended rule and the consequential demand required to remain stayed pending disposal of the writ petition.

Analysis: The Court distinguished between the challenged notifications and the assessment component that applied the amended rule to earlier assessment years. It held that the aspect of the assessment which deducted labour, service and similar charges under the amended rule raised a separate issue and deserved interim protection until final adjudication. The Revenue was, however, left free to redraw the demand and proceed further on that basis, including in relation to attachment.

Conclusion: The impugned assessment component applying the amended rule to determine taxable turnover remained suspended until disposal of the writ petition.

Issue (iii): Whether the objection regarding availability of the statutory appeal and maintainability of the writ petition should be decided at this stage.

Analysis: The Court noted the Revenue's reliance on the statutory appellate remedy, but considered it premature to finally decide maintainability at the interim stage. The effect of suppression and the appropriateness of the writ remedy were left for deeper consideration in the main proceeding.

Conclusion: The objection on maintainability was left open.

Final Conclusion: The interim protection was narrowed: the challenge to the prior notifications lost interim suspension, while the part of the assessment based on the amended turnover computation continued to be stayed pending final adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Suppression of material facts in writ proceedings may justify modification or vacation of interim relief, but interim protection may still be preserved in part where the challenged assessment component raises a distinct issue requiring final adjudication.

---