Suppression of material facts bars writ relief where the petitioner approaches the court without clean hands.

A writ petition was rejected because the petitioners suppressed a material communication showing that the firm had requested adjustment of a partner's refund against the tax demand. The Court applied the settled rule that a litigant seeking equitable relief must disclose all material facts and approach the court with clean hands; suppression of a material fact disentitles the party to relief at the threshold. On that basis, the petition was held not entertainable and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petition deserved to be entertained when the petitioners had suppressed a material fact relating to the request for adjustment of refund against the tax demand under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998.

Analysis: The petitioners sought relief on the basis that the tax arrears included income tax and interest, so that settlement under the scheme should have been computed under the clause applicable to mixed tax arrears. The Court found that the petitioners had not disclosed a material communication by which the firm had itself requested adjustment of a partner's refund against the demand. That omission was treated as a suppression of a material fact. The Court applied the settled principle that a litigant who approaches the Court with suppressed facts, falsehood, or unclean hands is not entitled to equitable relief and may be denied relief at the threshold.

Conclusion: The petition was not entertainable and was dismissed against the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: Relief was refused because the petitioners had suppressed a material fact, and the Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction in their favour.

Ratio Decidendi: A party seeking relief in writ jurisdiction must disclose all material facts; suppression of a material fact disentitles the party from equitable relief and justifies dismissal of the proceeding.

---