https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43060 False declaration on oath and concealment of an earlier writ petition on the same subject matter were treated as deliberate misconduct that disentitled the petitioners to discretionary relief under Article 226. The Court regarded the attempt to secure refund relief by suppressing the prior dismissal as an abuse of process and held that equitable writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked on the basis of misleading statements. It also found that prosecution could properly be directed for the false declaration, reflecting the legal consequence of false evidence and concealment in judicial proceedings. en-us Thu, 11 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:32:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43060 False declaration on oath and concealment of an earlier writ petition on the same subject matter were treated as deliberate misconduct that disentitled the petitioners to discretionary relief under Article 226. The Court regarded the attempt to secure refund relief by suppressing the prior dismissal as an abuse of process and held that equitable writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked on the basis of misleading statements. It also found that prosecution could properly be directed for the false declaration, reflecting the legal consequence of false evidence and concealment in judicial proceedings. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 11 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43060