Bar on re-agitating abandoned writ challenges prevents a fresh attack on search, seizure, and block assessment proceedings.
A subsequent writ petition could not revive challenges to a search and seizure action or block assessment proceedings under Chapter XIV-B where an earlier writ petition on the same cause of action had been disposed of without adjudication on merits and without liberty to re-agitate the same contentions. The Court applied the principle that objections given up, not pressed, or abandoned in earlier proceedings cannot be reopened in a fresh petition. As no liberty had been granted and the prior order left the merits untouched, the later challenge was not entertainable. The revisional orders and block assessment proceedings were therefore upheld, and the writ petitions were rejected.
Issues: Whether the petitioners could, in a subsequent writ petition, challenge the search and seizure action and the block assessment proceedings under Chapter XIV-B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 after an earlier writ petition on the same matter had been disposed of without any adjudication on merits and without liberty to re-agitate the same contentions.
Analysis: The petitioners had earlier approached the Court challenging the legality of the search under section 132(1) and the notice under section 158BC, but that petition was disposed of with a direction to complete the proceedings under Chapter XIV-B and without expressing any opinion on merits. No liberty had been granted to reopen the same contentions in later proceedings. In these circumstances, the Court held that the earlier order operated to prevent re-agitation of issues that had been given up or not pressed, and the petitioners could not revive those very objections in a second writ petition. The Court also noted the principle that a petitioner who withdraws or abandons a challenge cannot later file a fresh petition on the same cause of action.
Conclusion: The challenge to the earlier search, seizure, and consequential proceedings was not entertainable in the present writ petitions, and the petitioners failed.
Final Conclusion: The revisional orders and the block assessment proceedings were upheld, and the writ petitions were rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent writ petition cannot be used to revive contentions arising from an earlier writ petition disposed of without merits and without liberty to re-agitate the same cause of action.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
