Final order under Article 133 requires determination of substantive rights, not merely refusal to entertain an appeal.

An order is not a judgment or final order for Article 133 merely because it refuses to permit an appeal without prior deposit of assessed tax. Where the writ order does not decide tax liability on merits and only affects the ability to prosecute the appeal, it does not finally dispose of the parties' substantive rights in the proceeding. The High Court therefore held that the order was not a judgment, decree or final order within Article 133, and no certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court could be granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order dismissing the writ petition was a "judgment, decree or final order" so as to attract Article 133 of the Constitution of India and support a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court.

Analysis: The order under challenge did not determine the applicant's tax liability on merits. It only refused to direct the appellate authority to entertain the sales tax appeal without prior deposit of the assessed tax. An order is final for the purpose of appellate jurisdiction only if it finally disposes of the rights of the parties in relation to the suit or proceeding and affects their substantive rights. A mere decision on the ability to prosecute an appeal, without deciding the underlying liability, is not enough to constitute a judgment or final order within Article 133.

Conclusion: The order was not a judgment or final order within Article 133, and no certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court could be granted.

---