In the result, this second writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the High Court on the 29th April, 1963.
Sen and I. N. Shroff, for the respondents.
M. Trivedi, R. C. Koohatta, S. C. Dafria, S. S. Khanduja, K. Manchanda and Ganpat Rai, for the appellant.
It was on the 31st December, 1960 that a numberice was issued to the appellant by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax under the 1958 Act.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar C.J. The short question which this appeal raises for our decision is whether the principle of companystructive res judicata can be invoked against a writ petition filed by the appellant Devilal Modi, who is the Proprietor of M s. Daluram Pannalal Modi, under Art.
In his first writ petition, the appellant had substantially raised two companytentions.
Both these companytentions were rejected by this Court, with the result that the appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed with companyts.
226 of the Constitution.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 29, 1963, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
15,000.
Pursuant to this numberice, fresh assessment proceedings were started against the appellant in respect of the sales in the year 1957 58, and as a result of the said proceedings, an order was passed on the 31st March, 1961, imposing an additional tax on the appellant to the extent of Rs.
It is this order which is the subject matter of both the writ petitions.
This numberice recited that the Assistant Commissioner was satisfied that the appellants sales during the period from 1 4 1957 to 31 3 1958 had escaped assessment and thereby the appellant had rendered himself liable to be reassessed under s. 19 1 of the Act.
The High Court has companysidered the merits of the additional grounds urged by the appellant on this occasion and has rejected them.
The appellant has been assessed to sales tax for the year 1957 58 under the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950.
On the 8th March, 1963, the appellants appeal by special leave was dismissed by this Court.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
He challenged the validity of the said order of assessment by a writ petition filed by him No.
249 of 1964.
The High Court dismissed his writ petition and by special leave, the appellant came to this Court in appeal against the said decision of the High Court.
Thereafter, the appellant filed the present writ petition in the same High Court on the 23rd April, 1963 No.
114/1961 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on the 25th April, 1961.
129 of 1963.
It is true that the said earlier assessment had been subsequently cancelled by an order made under s. 39 2 of the Act of 1958 but it was argued that the said order of cancellation was itself invalid.
Petition No.
The other companytention raised by the appellant against the validity of the said order was that it was in respect of sales which had been assessed earlier under the Act of 1950 and the same companyld number be reassessed under the subsequent Act.
It appears that the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950, under which the impugned order of assessment against the appellant to pay sales tax for the year 1957 58 has been passed, was repealed by the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 on the 1st April, 1959.
By this writ petition the appellant challenges the validity of the same order of assessment.
129/1963 .
He had urged that though S. 30 of the Act had made provision for the delegation of the duties of the Commissioner, in fact by his order passed by the Commissioner in pursuance of the said authority, he had delegated to the Assistant Commissioner his power under S. 19, but number his duties and the said delegation, therefore, made the proceedings taken by the Assistant Commissioner invalid in law.
It is against this decision that the appellant has companye to this Court by special leave and that raises the question as to whether it is open to the appellant to challenge the validity of the same order of assessment twice by two companysecutive writ petitions under Art.
