TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1506X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itions filed were decided but without any relief in respect of levy of interest on entry tax. Any attempt to re-agitate the matter on a cause of action or issue on which the parties have previously litigated or which may have been raised and may not have been decided would amount to an abuse of the process of the court and would be contrary to the public policy as the object is to bring the lis to an end and not to allow any party to be vexed twice for the same cause of action. The petitioner had a better alternative remedy of disputing the correctness of the levy and demand of interest on entry tax on fact and law in appeal. Also, the matter regarding levy and payment of interest on entry tax in so far as the petitioner is concerned for the assessment years in question do not deserve to be interfered with by us in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Petition dismissed as not maintainable. - Writ Tax No. - 757 of 2018, 753 of 2018, 754 of 2018, 766 of 2018, 768 of 2018, 769 of 2018, 770 of 2018, 772 of 2018, 775 of 2018, 776 of 2018, 778 of 2018 And 779 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 22-11-2018 - Pankaj Mithal And Ashok Kumar JJ. For the Petitioner : Shubham Agrawal,Dhruv Aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he above effect before the Supreme Court were got dismissed as withdrawn after some arguments on the ground that it would raise the issue of levy of interest on entry tax before the High Court in the pending petitions. The applications were permitted to be withdrawn but without any liberty to agitate the issue again or before the High Court. Sri Dhruv Agarwal, Senior Counsel submits that the preliminary objection as raised by the respondents is not sustainable in law for various reasons. First the plea of res judicata would not apply to the miscellaneous applications. Secondly, there is no adjudication of any issue of levy of interest on entry tax by any court. Thirdly, the issue of levy of interest on entry tax is a pure question of law which cannot be denied to be raised even if a miscellaneous application in this regard filed before the Supreme Court has been withdrawn without any liberty. In the earlier round of the litigation or before the Supreme Court the issue of levy of interest on entry tax was never decided and was virtually left open to be decided separately. Even the Division Bench of the High Court while deciding a batch of petitions in relation to entry tax had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. The relief clause of the aforesaid writ petition i.e. prayer no.3 relating to the challenge to the assessment orders is reproduced hereinbelow:- that a suitable writ, of certiorari, or direction in the nature of certiorari be issued calling for the records and qua shing the assessment orders enclosed as Annexure 3 to 11. The orders of assessment of entry tax so challenged therein clearly directs for the payment of interest on the arrears of entry tax and as such interest on entry tax was one of the essential components of the assessment orders. In view of the prayer and the relief claimed in the earlier writ petitions inter alia assailing the assessment orders wherein interest on entry tax was one of the components, it is evident that the petitioner had preferred the earlier writ petitions questioning the levy of interest on the entry tax as well. The aforesaid writ petitions were ultimately dismissed by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 04.05.2018 which is final and conclusive so far. The High Court had not granted any relief regarding levy of interest on entry tax either by modifying the orders of assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant relief in that regard would not affect the right of the petitioner to challenge the levy of interest on entry tax. It is not the purpose or the object for which any document is enclosed with the petition but the actual relief claimed and granted which is material and important for deciding whether the cause of action on which the earlier petitions were filed was the same as in the present set of cases. A bare perusal of the pleadings of the earlier petitions as mentioned above and that of the present petitions makes it as clear as crystal that the challenge in the two sets of writ petitions apart from other things was to the orders of assessment of entry tax having interest on entry tax as one of the components and that the court while deciding the previous batch of the writ petitions have not granted any relief to the petitioner in that regard. The principle of res judicata enshrined under Section 11 of the Code of the Civil Procedure applies to writ proceedings as well as has been held in (2005) 7 SCC 190 Ishwar Dutt Vs. Collector (L.A.) and followed in (2009) 3 SCC 273 Koparagon S.S.K. Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and others. In Sarguja Transport Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defence. Thus, the principle of constructive res judicata underlying Explanation IV of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was applied to writ case. We accordingly hold that the writ case is fit to be dismissed on the ground of res judicata. In view of such authoritative pronouncement of the Constitution Bench of this Court, there can be no doubt that the principles of constructive res judicata, as explained in Explanation IV to Section 11 CPC, are also applicable to writ petitions. In other words any attempt to re-argue the case which has been decided by the court is a clear abuse of the process of the court, regardless of the principles of res judicata. In K.K. Modi vs. K.N. Modi (1998) 3 SCC 573 it has been observed as under:- 44. One of the examples cited as an abuse of the process of the court is relitigation. It is an abuse of the process of the court and contrary to justice and public policy for a party to relitigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. The reagitation may or may not be barred as res judicata. To put it simply, any attempt to re-agitate the matter on a cause of action or issue on which t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
