Gokul Chand Mital ( 1 ) THE petitioners have filed petitions with the prayer to quash the notification published in the times of India and jansata on 14th May, 1992, Annexures P-17, P-18 and P-19 to the petitions. By the said notification, the Commissioner Sales Tax Delhi, declared ST-I and ST-35 forms as obsolete and invalid with effect from the date of issue by the Department to the dealers. It is further prayed that these declaration forms will not be valid for claiming exemption in respect of sales made to registered/authorised dealers. ( 2 ) IN the notification, names of four dealers (Petitioners 1 to 4) have been mentioned (i) M/s. Ramesh Traders, (ii) M/s. Arun Trading Co. , (iii) M/s Ram Niwas and Co and (iv) M/s Arvind Kumar Goel. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the said notification the petitioners filed these writ petitions before this Court. On 22nd May, 1993, notices were issued to the respondents to show cause why rule nisi be not issued. Replies to the show cause were filed by the respondents. The respondents have taken the preliminary objection that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court because the petitioner have been playing fraud on public money and with well planned and conceived device, they have been systematically defrauding the revenue. It is further submitted that these petitioners have not approached the Court with clean hands and therefore, they are not entitled to any relief in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court. The respondents in reply to the writ petition have mentioned that the kingpin of bogus trade is one Mr. Satya Prakash, who started a firm under the name and style of Kanwar Shanker and Bros and got registration in Ward No. 41. ( 4 ) THE respondents have contended that the petitioners in order to get registered with the Sales Tax Department had submitted false information. The particulars in the ration card for registration did not carry correct information. The respondents have further mentioned in the counter- affidavit that each of the petitioners with virtually negligible investment ranging from Rs 4406. 75 to Rs 11,000. 00 were showing the sales running in crores. A few facts regarding the business activities of each of the petitioners are reproduced in order to properly appreciate the controversy in these petitions. The respondents have further mentioned in the counter- affidavit that each of the petitioners with virtually negligible investment ranging from Rs 4406. 75 to Rs 11,000. 00 were showing the sales running in crores. A few facts regarding the business activities of each of the petitioners are reproduced in order to properly appreciate the controversy in these petitions. ( 5 ) THE petitioner is nephew of Satya Prakash, kingpin of the bogus activities residing in the same residential premises. The total investment made by the petitioner was Rs 4406. 75. The business premises was situated at 1825-27/2, Main Road, Malkaganj, taken on a monthly rent of Rs 60. 00 from Smt Sunheri Devi wife of Shri Satya Prakash. In these business premises, another business was floated in the name and style of Ram Niwas and Co, which was owned by Ram Niwas, who is stated to be brother-in-law of Satya Prakash. ( 6 ) THE petitioner tried to mislead the Sales Tax Department by giving the address of 1825-27/2 Main Road, Malka Ganj. The petitioner opened bank account giving the address of 2279, Gali Hinga Beg Tilak Bazar, Delhi, which premises belong to the leader of the game Satya Parkash, Prop. Kanwar Shanker and Bros. ( 7 ) THE petitioner stood surety in the case of Kanwar Shanker and Bros for of Rs 5. 00 lakhs and again for Rs 50,000. 00. The petitioner also stood surety for Rs 25,000. 00 each under the Local and Central Act in favour of Ram Niwas and Co at the time of grant of certificate to the latter. Again in the case of Arun Trading Company, the petitioner stood surety for Rs 30,000. 00 and Rs 20,000. 00. The petitioner also stood surety for Rs 10,000. 00 - and Rs. 26,000. 00 for a firm owned by the father of Satya Parkash. The petitioner was working on commission basis prior to start of this business and owned no immoveable property and with a meager investment of Rs 4406. 75 and his yearly sales ran in to crores of rupees, detail of which is submitted as under- ( 8 ) SIMILARLY Ram Niwas started his business with Rs 11,000. 00 in the business remises of the wife of Satya Prakash on a monthly rent of Rs 50. 00. 75 and his yearly sales ran in to crores of rupees, detail of which is submitted as under- ( 8 ) SIMILARLY Ram Niwas started his business with Rs 11,000. 00 in the business remises of the wife of Satya Prakash on a monthly rent of Rs 50. 00. his sales were also running in crores, the detail of which are reproduced as under :- ( 9 ) ADMITTEDLY the investment of the other petitioners are even less than Rs 11,000. 00 and their sales also run in crores of rupees which is clearly evident from the sales of various years. ( 10 ) THIS petitioner made an investment of Rs 11000. 00 and carried his business activities from a room 10 x 10 . The petitioner had no godown,though the petitioner is engaged in the business of chemical and Kirana. The respondents has mentioned in the counter that this petitioner is in league with other dealers. ( 11 ) THE petitioner applied for issue of registration certificates under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 and the Central Sales Tax Act 1956 on 27. 2. 1991. , Certificates were issued with liability to pay tax with effect from 29. 1. 91. The business was a sole proprietorship concern and owned by Shri Rohtas Kumar the petitioner. In the premises where the petitioner was doing the business, another firm, namely, M/s. Rohtas Kumar Satish Kumar was also carrying on the business activities. The petitioner obtained statutory forms from the department numbering 298 and as per utilisation account filed the petitioner purchases goods worth Rs 99160115. 25 from 30. 4. 91 to 28. 4. 92. A copy of the utilisation account filed by the petitioner has been annexed to the reply. The perusal of the utilisation account would clearly indicate that each transaction of purchase runs into lakhs. The table given below would show the huge purchases made which looking to the meager investment from inadequate premises is not only improbable but impossible. The petitioner made the following sales from the inception of business to 30. 9. 92 as per returns filed. All such sales are made to registered dealers and as per information available with the answering respondents dealers to whom such sales have been made are also bogus. ( 12 ) IN the case of the petitioner one dealer Ankit Trading Company stood surety for Rs 40,000. 9. 92 as per returns filed. All such sales are made to registered dealers and as per information available with the answering respondents dealers to whom such sales have been made are also bogus. ( 12 ) IN the case of the petitioner one dealer Ankit Trading Company stood surety for Rs 40,000. 00 and Rs 30,000. 00 under the Local and Central Acts as conditions for grant of registration certificates to the petitioner. The said surety dealer was registered on 26. 5. 90 and he surrendered back registration certificates for cancellation on 1. 4. 92 The investment made by the registered dealer was only Rs 21,000. 00. The surety dealer has been carrying on business was in the space of 10 x6 . The said surety dealer made the following purchases and sales during two years i. e. 1990-91 and 1992-92 detailed as under: ( 13 ) THESE bogus registered dealers evolved a scheme to indulge in fraudulent business transactions to cheat the Sales Tax Department of huge sales tax. They also furnished false documents on the basis of which they obtained registration certificate from the Sales Tax Department and at times in connivance with the Sales Tax Officers also. The pattern of the business activities and purchase and sales effected by these dealers would indicate that their transactions were mostly on papers and goods so purchased were disposed of and their sales were not accounted for. ( 14 ) THE respondents have indicated a large number of instances of furnishing of false information by the petitioners in order to obtain sales tax certificates and no objection certificates. They also indicated the instances of interpolation of number in the No objection certificate. ( 15 ) WE do not propose to deal with these allegations in detail. Admittedly all the petitioners have invested less than Rs 11,000. 00 in the business and a cursory look on the yearly sales indicates that their sales have been in crores of rupees. It is inconceivable" to have sales in crores of rupees with such petty investments. The petitioners are further guilty of furnishing false information to all concerned offices. On the face of it is obvious that all the petitioners who are closely inter connected together and perpetuated systematic fraud to avoid sales tax running in crores of rupees. This perhaps was done to get benefit for claiming the exemption. The petitioners are further guilty of furnishing false information to all concerned offices. On the face of it is obvious that all the petitioners who are closely inter connected together and perpetuated systematic fraud to avoid sales tax running in crores of rupees. This perhaps was done to get benefit for claiming the exemption. ( 16 ) THE respondents have rightly taken the preliminary objection in their reply that the petitioners with such background cannot be permitted to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court. We cannot help observing that this kind of systematic fraud for fisuch a long period would not have been possible without the active connivance of the official of the respondents. ( 17 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners placed reliance of CHHABRA ELECTRIC STORES VS THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, [1972] 30 STC 85 and CROMELITE (INDIA) PVT LTD VERSUS STATE OF MAHRASHTRA [1981] 48 STC 223. We have examined the ratio of these two decisions. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the cited cases cannot provide any assistance to the petitioners. The petitions filed by the petitioners are devoid of merit and accordingly are dismissed with costs.