Discretionary writ relief denied where suppressed facts and tax quantification dispute did not establish any fundamental right breach.

Writ relief under Article 226 is discretionary and may be refused where the petitioner has suppressed material facts and seeks to undo only the quantification or recovery of a lawful tax liability. The Court treated the agricultural income-tax dispute as one about rectification and collection, not the existence of liability itself, and held that alleged illegality in quantification did not by itself establish an infringement of fundamental rights. In these circumstances, extraordinary jurisdiction was not available to protect a tax advantage obtained through incomplete disclosure, and the rectification order and consequential demand were not liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether relief under article 226 should be refused where the petitioner had suppressed material facts and sought to avoid or retain part of his tax liability, and whether the impugned rectification and recovery could be treated as an infringement of fundamental rights.

Analysis: The petitioner's entitlement to relief was examined in the light of the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction. The assessment and collection machinery under the agricultural income-tax statute imposed the tax liability, while the impugned rectification related only to quantification. The petitioner had omitted material particulars about his lands and had thereby obtained a lower tax fixation. In those circumstances, the Court held that it would not exercise extraordinary jurisdiction in his favour merely because he alleged that the rectification was without authority. The contention that the matter involved infringement of property or business rights was rejected, because the case did not concern a tax demand where no liability existed at all, but only a dispute over the correctness of quantification and collection.

Conclusion: Relief under article 226 was declined. The petitioner was not entitled to have the rectification order or consequential demand quashed.

Final Conclusion: The petition was dismissed because the Court refused to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of a litigant whose own suppression of facts had produced the tax dispute and who could not claim constitutional protection to retain an unlawful tax advantage.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ relief is discretionary and may be refused where the petitioner has suppressed material facts and seeks to challenge only the quantification or recovery of a lawful tax liability; an allegation of illegality in quantification does not by itself establish infringement of fundamental rights.

---