2023 (4) TMI 407 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Appeals Dismissed for Lack of Maintainability After Withdrawal without Reserving Liberty

The appeals challenging an order were dismissed as withdrawn, raising questions on their maintainability. The appellant sought to demonstrate goods ... Maintainability of appeal - movement of goods in terms of Section 3(1)(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - HELD THAT:- The Supreme Court in VINOD KAPOOR VERSUS STATE OF GOA & ORS [2012 (10) TMI 1041 - SUPREME COURT] had, while examining whether a special leave petition against an order passed by the High Court would be maintainable in a case where on a prior occasion, the special leave petition had been dismissed, held that the appeal would not be maintainable. The principle is now well settled that the litigant cannot file repeated appeals against the same order. Once the appellant has withdrawn the appeal without reserving any liberty to file afresh, the said remedy will stand exhausted. The present appeals are dismissed as not maintainable. Issues involved:The appellant's appeal impugning an order dated 01.10.2021 in Appeal No. 162-165/ATVAT/2019 and Appeal No. 166-169/ATVAT/2019 was dismissed as withdrawn, leading to the question of maintainability of the present appeals.Impugned Order Withdrawn:The appellant withdrew the appeal after some arguments, seeking liberty to demonstrate the movement of goods had taken place before the concerned authority u/s Section 3(1)(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.Maintainability Challenge:The respondent argued against the maintainability of the present appeal, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Vinod Kapoor vs. State of Goa & Ors., emphasizing that without liberty to file a fresh appeal, the present appeals are not maintainable.Preclusion from Challenging Order:The Supreme Court's decision highlighted that once a special leave petition is withdrawn without reserving liberty to file afresh, the appellant is precluded from challenging the order through a special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution.Legal Precedents: The court referred to previous cases to support the principle that an appeal by way of Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is not maintainable against an order rejecting an application for review, as per Order XLVII, Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code.Dismissal of Appeals:Based on established legal principles, the court dismissed the present appeals as not maintainable, emphasizing that the litigant cannot file repeated appeals against the same order once the remedy has been exhausted by withdrawing the appeal without reserving the liberty to file afresh.