1964 (3) TMI 80

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt year 1957-58, the petitioner was assessed on 19th March, 1958. It was subsequently however revealed that the petitioner was guilty of some suppression of some transactions. A penalty order therefore was made on 8th May, 1958. Against that order, the petitioner went in appeal to the Assistant Commissioner. That appeal was dismissed. He carried the matter to the Tribunal again in appeal, but was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ised in the previous writ petition. That does not in my opinion make any change. When it is now decided in Daryao v State of U.P.A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1457. that principles of res judicata are applicable to applications under Article 226, it must follow that the rule of constructive res judicata would also be attracted. If the petitioner had failed to raise all the contentions which might and ought to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he first time now to find out whether the order dated 19th March, 1958, is bad in law. Even in this writ petition no writ of certiorari is asked to quash that order. No specific grounds are shown in the affidavit as to why that order is a nullity. That order therefore has become final. What was challenged in the previous writ petition and is now challenged in this writ petition is not the order of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X