1967 (12) TMI 9 - HC - Income Tax

Petitioner under article 226 of the Constitution prays to direct the Income-tax Officer, to desist from taking recovery proceedings - It is a settled rule that the court will not allow a party to succeed, on a second application, when it has previously applied for the very same thing and failed, except in case of alteration in the form of a title or jurat in the affidavit

Summary

Issues:
Petition under article 226 to direct the Income-tax Officer to desist from recovery proceedings under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Additional grounds raised include violation of article 14, exceeding ambit of entry 82 of List I, excessive delegation in section 226, and legality of the certificate issued by the Income-tax Officer.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition under article 226 seeking to restrain the Income-tax Officer from recovery proceedings based on a notice issued under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner had previously filed a similar writ petition which was dismissed by the court. In the current petition, the petitioner raised additional grounds, including constitutional violations and challenges to the legality of the certificate issued by the Income-tax Officer. However, the court noted that these grounds were not raised in the earlier petition and the petitioner failed to provide any valid explanation for not doing so. The court emphasized the importance of presenting all relevant facts and grounds in the initial petition to avoid abuse of the legal process and ensure finality in litigation.

The court highlighted the principle that parties seeking relief in relation to a specific subject matter must present all available facts and grounds in their initial petition. Failure to do so, whether due to negligence or oversight, cannot justify initiating a new litigation on the same subject matter. The court cited legal principles emphasizing that successive petitions on the same subject should not be allowed, as it could lead to abuse of the court's process. The court referred to established rules that prevent parties from succeeding in a second application for the same relief if they had previously applied for it and failed, except in cases where there are substantial changes in the circumstances or legal grounds.

In light of the principles outlined, the court dismissed the petitioner's second petition with costs imposed on the petitioner. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction under article 226 is broad but subject to certain principles, including the requirement for parties to present all relevant facts and grounds in their initial petition. The court's decision aimed to uphold the integrity of the legal process and prevent the abuse of court procedures through successive petitions on the same subject matter.