DEVILAL MODI, PROPRIETOR, M/S. DALURAM PANNALAL MODI versus SALES TAX OFFICER, RATLAM AND OTHERS

Citation: [1965] 1 S.C.R. 686 · Decided: 07-10-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

696 
DEVILAL MODI, PROPRIETOR, M/S. DALURAM 
A 
PANNALAL MODI 
v. 
SALES TAX OFFICER, RA TLAM AND OTHERS 
October 7, 1964 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, 
B 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, RAGHUBAR DAYAL 
AND J. R. MUDHOLKA!l JJ.) 
Practice-Principle of constructive res judicata-App/icabU/ty to writ 
petitions. 
The appellant was a...=ed to sales tax and the order of useMment was 
challenged by a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court dis-
missed the petition and he appealed to the Supreme Court. 
At the hearing 
of the appeal additional contentions were sought to be raised. 
The appeal 
was dismissed and the additional contentions were not permitted to be railed. 
Thereupon. he filed another writ petition in the High Court railing those 
additional contentions and challenging the order of assessment for tlM' 
same year. 
The High Court dismissed the petition on merit&. 
On appeal 
to the Supreme Court, 
HELD : The appeal should be dismissed as the principle of comtructive 
us judicata is applicable in these circumstane<:S. [692 E-F]. 
Though the courts dealing with questions of infringement of funda-
mental rights must coru;istently endeavour to sustain them and strike down 
their unconstitutional invasion, it would not be right to ignore the principle 
of res judicata altogether in dealing with writ petitions. Considerations of 
public policy and the basic doctrine that judgments of competent courb are 
final and binding as between the parties must receive due consideration. 
{691 C-E]. 
The Ama/11amated Coal Field" Lrd. & Anr. v. The Janapada Sa~loa. 
C/1hlndwara, [1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 172, explained. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 249 of 
1964. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
April 29, 1963, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. 
Petition No. 129 of 1963. 
U. M. Trivedi, R. C. Koohatta, S. C. Dafrz'a, S. S. Khanduja, 
S. K. Manchanda and Ganpat Rai, for the appellant. 
B. Sen and /. N. Shroff, for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Gajendragadkar CJ. The short question which this appeal 
raises for our decision is whether the principle of con~tructive 
res j11dicata can be invoked against a writ petition filed by the 
appellant Devilal Modi, who is the Proprietor of M/s. Daluram 
Pannalal Modi, under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 
The appel-
lant has been assessed to sales-lax for the year 1957-58 under 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
DEVILAL MODI v. SALES TAX OFFICER (Gajendragadkar C.J.) 687 
A the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950. 
He challenged the 
validity of the said order of assessment by a writ petition filed 
by him (No. 114/1961) in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh 
on the 25th April, 1961. The High Court dismissed his writ 
petition and by special leave, the appellant came to t:ris Court 
in appeal against the said decision of the High Court. 
On the 
B 
8th March, 1963, the appellant's appeal by special leave was 
dismissed by this Court. 
Thereafter, the appellant filed the present writ petition in the 
same High Court on the 23rd April, 1963 (No. 129/1963). 
By. this writ petition the appellant challenges the validity of the 
c same order of assessment. 
The High Court !\as considered the 
merits of the additional grounds urged by the' appellant on this 
occasion and has rejected them. In the result, this second writ 
petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the High 
Court on the 29th April, 1963. It is against this decision that 
the appellant has come to this Court by special leave; and that 
D 
raises the question as to whether it is open to the appellant to 
challenge the validity of · the same order of assessment twice by 
two consecutive writ petitions under Art. 226. 
It appears that the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950, under 
which the impugned order of assessment against the appellant 
E 
ti:> pay sales-tax for the. year 1957-58 has been passed, was re-
pealed by the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. 1958 
on the 1st April, 1959. It was on the 31st December, 1960 that 
a notice was issued to the appellant by the Assistant Commis-
sioner of Sales Tax under the 1958 Act. 
This notice recited 
that the Assistant Commissioner was satisfied that the appellant's 
F 'sales during the period from 1-4-1957 to 31-3-1958 had escaped 
assessment and thereby the appellant had rendered himself liable 
to be reassessed under s. 19 ( 1) of the Act. 
Pursuant to this 
notice, fresh assessment proceedings were start

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.