9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ders have become final. This original petition, filed without challenging these assessment orders before the appellate authorities for a declaration under article 226 of the Constitution to declare them as unenforceable, is not maintainable for more than one reason. Firstly, the petitioner has not exhausted the effective alternative remedies available to him. Secondly, the assessment orders of the years 1975-76 to 1990-91 which were all passed from the years 1982 onwards and the last of the order Linder challenge passed on December 27, 1991, cannot be challenged under article 226 of the Constitution after the inordinate delay of more than a decade in some cases and nearly two decades in a few cases. The original petition is liable to be dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Department for all these years and after having taken the assessment orders have come before this court suppressing the material facts stands established. The stand of the petitioner as seen from the various paragraphs in the original petition including paragraph 14 wherein he states that he has not been communicated by the statutory authorities about the orders of assessment passed against him. On the contrary, the statements in the orders of assessment, copies of which have been produced and marked, state clearly that the petitioner was served with notice and he did not respond to that and therefore the assessments were completed as per the proposal, etc. The details of the notices from 1973-74 to 1990-91 were furnished in paragraph ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p; 3-1-82 refused 25-2-83 refused 1978-79 3-1-84 refused 1-3-84 refused 1979-80 10-10-84 refused 22-10-84 refused 1980-81 3-3-86 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were refused as revealed from the table shown above. The refusal of notice is equivalent to service and therefore the petitioner cannot contend that the notices were not served. Since orders have become final without seeking any ordinary remedy the petitioner approached this honourable court without any bona fides." In so far as exhibit P-16 notice is concerned it is seen from the statement filed on behalf of the third respondent that notice under sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act were issued to the petitioner through the Village Officer on May 23, 1987, and January 18, 1990, in reference to demands of Rs.40,913.60 for the sales tax arrears due from 1980-81 to 1984-85 and Rs.41,620 for the year 1989-90, respectively. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observed as follows: "It is a well-settled proposition of law that it is the duty of a person invoking the special writ jurisdiction of a court to make a full and true disclosure of all relevant facts. He should not suppress any facts. An applicant for a writ under article 226 of the Constitution must come in the manner prescribed and must be perfectly frank and open with the court. If he makes a statement which is false or conceals something which is relevant from the court the court will refuse to go into the matter. If the court comes to the conclusion that the affidavit in support of the application was not candid and did not fully state the facts, but either suppressed the material facts or stated them in such a way as to mislead the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
