' 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.