Final order under Article 133 requires conclusive determination of rights; limitation effects do not convert a non-final order.

An order is final under article 133 only if it conclusively determines the parties' rights and liabilities by its own force. An order merely declaring notices bad does not finally adjudicate tax liability or the power to assess escaped income, and a later limitation bar does not convert such a non-final order into a final one. The Court also found no substantial question of law and no basis for granting leave to appeal under article 133. Leave was therefore rightly refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order was a final order for the purpose of article 133 of the Constitution of India and whether leave to appeal could be granted.

Analysis: For an order to be final under article 133, it must by its own force finally dispose of the rights and liabilities of the parties in the proceeding. An order declaring the issued notices bad does not itself adjudicate the liability to tax or the right to bring the escaped income to assessment. A supervening bar of limitation does not change the character of an order that otherwise does not finally determine the controversy. The Court also found no substantial question of law warranting certification under article 133(1)(a), and no fit case under article 133(1)(c).

Conclusion: The order was not a final order within article 133 and leave to appeal was rightly refused.

Ratio Decidendi: An order is final under article 133 only if it conclusively determines the rights and liabilities in the proceeding by its own force; supervening consequences such as limitation do not convert a non-final order into a final one.

---