IMPORTANT POINT
Parties approaching the court must act in utmost good faith and disclose all material facts, as suppression of material facts can lead to the dismissal of the petition without granting any relief.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri Amit Mahajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. Physical verification report filed by the learned counsel for the respondents in Court today be kept on record.

3. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated February 27, 2023 passed by the Joint Commissioner, C.G.S.T. (Appeal), Meerut cancelling its GST registration.

4. The ground for cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner was that upon physical verification, it was found by the authorities that no business activity was being carried out at the said premises. Authorities also called the proprietor on several occasions but his phone was switched off and he did not picked up the calls. A show cause notice was issued by the Department, which was replied by the petitioner and subsequently the order cancelling the registration was passed. Against the order cancelling registration, the petitioner went up in appeal and the said appeal was also dismissed after passing a detailed order.

5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that there has been suppression of material fact, as the petitioner has not revealed before this Court that a new registration was obtained by the petitioner subsequent to cancellation of the earlier registration.

6. The Court having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had directed for verification of the premises without having knowledge of the fact that a new registration has been obtained by the petitioner. In the verification, which was done pursuant to the order of this Court dated February 22, 2024, it was found that the factory was operational and the proprietor informed the authorities that he had obtained a new registration prior to filing of the writ petition.

7. I am of the view that having obtained a new registration was a material fact that should have been brought into the knowledge of this Court. In fact, the Court was hoodwinked by the petitioner in passing an order for verification of the premises by the authorities. The fact that neither was there any averment in the writ petition nor the counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that a new registration has been obtained resulted in sheer wastage of time of the authorities in carrying out the second verification.

8. I had the occasion to deal with the aspect of suppression of material facts in Bhriguram De v. State of West Bengal and others reported in (2018) SCC OnLine Cal 8141 wherein I had examined the aspect of fraud, fraudulent concealment and doctrine of clean hands in great detail. One may delineate the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment below:

“13. ‘Fraud’, according to Black's law Dictionary, 10th Edition, is a knowing misrepresentation or knowing concealment of a material fact made to induce another to act to his or her detriment; a reckless misrepresentation made without justified belief in its truth to induce another person to act; a tort arising from a knowing or reckless misrepresentation or concealment of material fact made to induce another to act to his or her detriment.

14. “Fraudulent concealment” as defined in Black's law Dictionary, 10th Edition, is the affirmative suppression or hiding, with the intent to deceive or defraud, of a material fact or circumstance that one is legally (or, sometimes, morally) bound to reveal.

15. According to the Law Lexicon, Third Edition (2012), the Latin Maxim “Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi” defines that the suppression of the truth is equivalent to the suggestion of falsehood. The suppression or failure to disclose what one party is bound to disclose to another, may amount to fraud. Where a person is found to be guilty of suppressio veri suggestio falsi for having concealed material information from scrutiny of the Co