MOHANLAL CHOKHANY Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are applications under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the imposition of penalty under sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, read with sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Two separate penalties were imposed, one of Rs. 12,000 and another of Rs. 3,500 in respect of two assessment years ending on April 19, 1964, and April 9, 1965, respectively. The petitioner had earlier made an application under article 226 of the Constitution to the High Court of Calcutta and the learned Single Judge dismissed his petition on May 31, 1967. The petitioner had not cared to file an appeal against the order in the High court or asked for special leave to appeal against the order under article 136 of the Constitution, although the learned Judge in dismissing the application, passed a speaking order giving full reasons why he did not accept the writ petition. It appears, therefore, that the present petitions are covered by the decision of this Court in Daryao and Others v. State of U. P. and Others and by a further decision of this Court recently given in The Virudhunagar Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. v. The Government of madras. In the latter case, it has been held that where there is a speaking order, a second writ petition in this Court does not lie even though no notice in the petition had been issued before the High Court decided the matter.

(2.) It is contended before us that as the High Court had not issued rule nisi in the court, the order does not bind the petitioner and he is entitled to move this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution by a separate writ petition filed in this Court. Precisely, the same question had been decided in the second of the cases mentioned above and we think that there is no scope therefore for interference in these petitions.

(3.) The petitions fail and are dismissed, but we make no order about costs.