2024 (8) TMI 437 - SCH - Income Tax

Sought permission to withdraw the Review Petition - Exemption u/s 10(22) - denial of exemption objects of the Trust include commercial activity - as submitted that the reason as to why the aforesaid Review Petition was withdrawn was in order to pursue the Special Leave Petition before this Court - Filing of second Review Petition - HELD THAT - We do not think this petition ought to be entertained for the reason that when the earlier Review Petition was withdrawn before the High Court, there was no liberty sought by the petitioner herein to file another Review Petition. The petitioner herein took his chance before this Court in the aforesaid Special Leave Petitions which were dismissed on 17.04.2023. In case the petitioner intended that the original order of the High Court was to be reviewed by the Division Bench of the High Court then the petitioner could have sought permission to withdraw the Special Leave Petitions with liberty to file a Review Petition. At that stage also no such withdrawal of the Special Leave Petitions with the aforesaid liberty was sought for by the petitioner before this Court. On the other hand, the petitioner took a chance to argue the Special Leave Petitions on merits and when this Court was disinclined to interfere in the matter, once again, the Review Petition No.253/2023 was filed by the petitioner before the High Court. We find that that the said vacillation of the petitioner vis-a-vis the filing of the initial Review Petition and thereafter withdrawing the same and pursuing the Special Leave Petitions and on its dismissal once again filing another Review Petition is not in accordance with the policy of attaining finality in litigation. Moreover, the non-seeking of liberty by the petitioner at the initial stage or before this Court is fatal to the case of the petitioner. In the instant case, when the first Review Petition was withdrawn owing to the filing of the Special Leave Petitions before this Court, no liberty was sought to file a Review Petition once again. This would imply that the petitioner had aborted hearing of the Review Petition by the High Court in order to prosecute the matter before this Court in the Special Leave Petitions. Even if after the dismissal of the first review petition by the High Court on merits, the petitioner could have challenged the original order as well as the order passed in the first review petition but the fact of the matter is first Review Petition was dismissed as withdrawn without any liberty and the petitioner once again filed another Review Petition in the case after the Special Leave Petitions before this Court were also dismissed on merits, without withdrawing the same with liberty to revive the earlier Review Petition. This would clearly indicate the intention of the petitioner which was to prosecute the Special Leave Petitions before this Court. After dismissal of the special leave petitions by this Court, the petitioner could not have filed another Review Petition before the High Court. There has to be a finality to the lis at some point of time and at some stage of the case. On the other hand, the second Review Petition filed by the petitioner being dismissed, has led to the petitioner once again filing the Special Leave Petitions as against the said order before this Court. This case is similar to Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm vs. K. Santhakumaran, 1998 (9) TMI 663 - SUPREME COURT wherein Special leave petitions preferred were dismissed by this Court and thereafter, Review Petitions were filed and entertained by the High Court. Therefore, strong strictures were passed by this Court against vis- -vis the order of the High Court. SLP dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Withdrawal of Review Petition, Filing of Special Leave Petitions, Dismissal of Special Leave Petitions, Filing of Another Review Petition, Policy of Finality in Litigation, Judicial Discipline.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Supreme Court addressed the sequence of events involving the withdrawal of a Review Petition, the subsequent filing of Special Leave Petitions, and the dismissal of those petitions. The petitioner withdrew the initial Review Petition to pursue Special Leave Petitions before the Court. However, upon the dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions, the petitioner filed another Review Petition before the High Court. The Court noted that the petitioner did not seek liberty to file a new Review Petition after withdrawing the initial one, which was considered fatal to the case. The Court emphasized the importance of attaining finality in litigation and criticized the petitioner's vacillation in filing and withdrawing petitions without seeking proper permissions. This inconsistency was deemed contrary to the policy of achieving closure in legal proceedings.

The Court referred to the case of Khoday Distilleries Limited, where a similar situation arose, and distinguished it from the present case. Additionally, the judgment cited the case of Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm, highlighting the consequences of filing Review Petitions after the dismissal of Special Leave Petitions. The Court emphasized the need for judicial discipline and adherence to established legal principles to avoid vexatious litigation. The judgment also quoted maxims emphasizing the importance of finality in legal proceedings and the acceptance of judicial decisions as correct to prevent confusion and uphold justice.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, emphasizing the need to bring an end to the litigation process. The Court's decision was based on the principles of avoiding multiple litigations on the same issue, the interest of the State in concluding legal disputes, and the importance of respecting judicial decisions. The judgment underscored the significance of following legal procedures diligently and respecting the finality of court decisions to maintain the integrity of the legal system.