https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212630 Writ relief under Article 226 is discretionary and requires full, candid disclosure of all material facts. Where the petitioner had received, retained and utilised the consideration paid after a pre-emptive acquisition order under Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, but failed to disclose those facts in the writ petition and rejoinder, the Court treated the conduct as suppression of material facts and approbation and reprobation. That conduct disentitled the petitioner from discretionary relief, so the challenge to the acquisition was rejected at the threshold without examination of the merits. en-us Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Apr 2012 16:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212630 Writ relief under Article 226 is discretionary and requires full, candid disclosure of all material facts. Where the petitioner had received, retained and utilised the consideration paid after a pre-emptive acquisition order under Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, but failed to disclose those facts in the writ petition and rejoinder, the Court treated the conduct as suppression of material facts and approbation and reprobation. That conduct disentitled the petitioner from discretionary relief, so the challenge to the acquisition was rejected at the threshold without examination of the merits. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212630