TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the special leave petition was maintainable after the earlier challenge to the same judgment had been dismissed and the subsequent application for recall was withdrawn with liberty only to seek review before the High Court.
Analysis: The Court held that the matter had already travelled to the Supreme Court earlier, that the earlier challenge to the High Court judgment had been dismissed, and that the later miscellaneous application seeking recall was withdrawn with liberty confined to review before the High Court. Relying on the principles governing finality of litigation, withdrawal without further liberty, the doctrine of merger, and the limited scope of review jurisdiction, the Court held that a fresh invocation of Article 136 was impermissible in the absence of specific liberty to approach the Court again after failure of review. The Court also noted that the review court had found no infirmity or illegality warranting interference.
Conclusion: The special leave petition was held to be not maintainable and was dismissed in limine.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an earlier special leave petition against the same order has been dismissed and a later attempt to reopen the matter is pursued after withdrawal of recall proceedings with liberty only to seek review, a subsequent special leave petition challenging the same underlying judgment is barred in the absence of express liberty to reapproach the Supreme Court.
TaxTMI 
