https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127629 Relief under Article 226 may be declined where the petitioner suppresses material facts, omits candour about notices received, and withholds the fact that statutory revisional proceedings are pending; the writ remedy was treated as improperly invoked in those circumstances. Section 7(4) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was also described as valid, because the amendment power applied uniformly to registered dealers, did not discriminate under Article 14, and did not impose an unreasonable restriction under Article 19(1)(g) when exercised subject to statutory safeguards and revisionary supervision. The analysis therefore supports refusal of writ relief and upholds the constitutional validity of the provision. en-us Fri, 08 Mar 1957 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:31:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127629 Relief under Article 226 may be declined where the petitioner suppresses material facts, omits candour about notices received, and withholds the fact that statutory revisional proceedings are pending; the writ remedy was treated as improperly invoked in those circumstances. Section 7(4) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was also described as valid, because the amendment power applied uniformly to registered dealers, did not discriminate under Article 14, and did not impose an unreasonable restriction under Article 19(1)(g) when exercised subject to statutory safeguards and revisionary supervision. The analysis therefore supports refusal of writ relief and upholds the constitutional validity of the provision. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 08 Mar 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127629