KOHINOOR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED vs PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and 2 others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld the refusal of respondent Taxing Authorities under the Laws of Central Excise to allow the petitioner's claim for full abatement of excise duty. The core legal question concerns whether a fresh writ petition is maintainable to re-agitate an issue that was decided against the petitioner in an earlier round of litigation which attained finality because it was not challenged before the Supreme Court, notwithstanding a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in a similar case taking a contrary view. The Supreme Court held that the prior unappealed judgment of the High Court operates as res judicata against the petitioner, barring fresh proceedings to the extent the authorities did not grant relief. The key principle laid down is that a final and binding judgment between the parties operates as res judicata and cannot be reopened merely because a subsequent pronouncement of a superior court takes a different view on the legal question in a different case.
- Does a prior unappealed judgment of the High Court operate as res judicata preventing a fresh writ petition on the same matter?
- Can fresh proceedings be initiated to re-agitate an issue settled in an earlier round of litigation because the Supreme Court later took a different view in a similar case?
- Does a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court have the effect of reopening all earlier finalised cases decided by the High Court?
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought; against the dismissal by the High Court, of petitioner's writ petition. It had arisen out of the refusal by the respondent Taxing Authorities under the Laws of Central Excise to allow them the claim for full "abatement" of excise duty. Learned counsel has stated that it has already been allowed to the extent of 50 per cent.
2. The same question which is the subject-matter of this petition had in an earlier round come before the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel states that the petitioner's writ petition was dismissed. He, however, further stated that subsequently a development took place; namely, that in similar cases this Court expressed such view on the question in issue regarding abatement which goes against the view earlier expressed by the concerned respondents and upheld by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. While stating so learned counsel frankly admitted that the decision of the High Court in the earlier round was not brought under challenge by the petitioner before the Supreme Court and in this context it had attained finality. He, however, justified starting of fresh proceedings on account of the aforestated circumstances, whereupon he further explained the authorities re-examined the petitioner's case and also gave some relief. This according to him is further justification for re-agitating the same matter in the High Court by filing a fresh writ petition.
When questioned; whether, the judgment of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel had the effect of re-opening of all the earlier finalised cases decided by the High Court, he remained unable to render a positive answer. In our view, the judgment of the High Court which had become final against the petitioner would operate as res judicata against the petitioner, at least to the extent the authorities concerned have not accepted the petitioner's plea; for which fresh writ petition was filed in the second round and for which this petition for leave to appeal has been filed.
Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 10 cases
- SAIF TEXTILE MILLS LTD. GADOON INDUSTRIAL ESTATE Versus MINISTRY OF NATIONAL FOOD SECURITY AND RESEARCH, through Secretary Islamabad 2026 PTD 1154
- SHAHID PERVAIZ Versus EJAZ AHMAD 2017 SCMR 206
- Messrs NISHAT (CHUNIAN) LTD. through Chief Financial Officer vs PROVINCE PLJ 2012 Tax Cases (Lah.) 42
- Messrs NISHAT (CHUNIAN) LTD. through Chief Financial Officer vs PROVINCE 2012 PTD 1447
- Messrs NISHAT CHUNIAN LTD. vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Local Government and 2 others PLJ 2012 Tax Cases (Lah.) 42, 2012 PTD 1447, 2012 CLD 1288
- Messrs NISH AT CHUNIAN LTD. through Chief Officer vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB 2013 CLC 34
- Mst. HAJIANI KHATIJA BAI and 8 others vs Haji DAWOOD and 11 others 2003 MLD 828
- QUETTA TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, NADIR HOUSE, G_FI, I.I. CHUNDRIGAR ROAD, KARACHI vs PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others 2000 YLR 2683
- QUETTA TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, KARACHI vs PAKISTAN Through SECRETARY 2001 P.C.T.L.R. 45
- Shahid Pervaiz and 23 others vs Ejaz Ahmad and 23 others 2016 SCP 118