A Third Writ Could Not Reopen the Same Tax Order
A taxpayer may have several grounds for challenging a GST demand, but those grounds must be raised through the correct legal remedy and at the proper time. Once a writ petition against an adjudication order is withdrawn without permission to file a fresh petition, the taxpayer cannot ordinarily challenge the same order again merely by improving the drafting, adding new legal grounds or questioning related notifications.
This principle was applied in M/s PSR Elecon Private Limited v. Chief Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise and Others, 2026-VIL-1087-ORI, decided on 18.09.2026. The judgment in W.P.(C) No. 26417 of 2026 was delivered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, comprising Hon'ble Dr Justice Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi and Hon’ble Mr Justice Murahari Sri Raman.
The petitioner, a works contractor registered under the CGST and OGST Acts, received a show-cause notice dated 30.03.2022 under Section 74 for financial years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. An Order-in-Original dated 27.09.2024 subsequently confirmed demands relating to allegedly excess or ineligible ITC, interest and penalty. The petitioner challenged the use of a single notice for several financial years, limitation, the validity of notifications issued under Section 168A and the effect of the retrospectively inserted Section 16(5). However, none of these issues was examined on merits because the petitioner had already filed and withdrawn two earlier writ petitions concerning the same adjudication order
The First Withdrawal Without Liberty Decided the Case
The petitioner filed its first writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 29985 of 2025, on 26.09.2025. It challenged the Order-in-Original dated 27.09.2024 and sought cancellation of the demands relating to tax, ITC, interest and penalty. It also sought a refund of about Rs.3.50 crore and another amount of Rs.7.67 lakh allegedly recovered from its electronic cash ledger. On 23.12.2025, the petitioner withdrew this writ petition. It neither requested nor received permission to file another petition on the same cause of action.
The petitioner then filed W.P.(C) No. 8448 of 2026, once again challenging the same Order-in-Original and seeking substantially the same relief. This petition was withdrawn on 14.05.2026, but on this occasion the Court granted liberty to file a “better petition.” The petitioner thereafter filed the present writ petition. In addition to the Order-in-Original, it challenged the show-cause notice, Notification No. 09/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023 and the corresponding State notification dated 15.04.2023.
The petitioner argued that the earlier writ petitions had only been withdrawn and had never been decided on merits. It therefore claimed that a properly drafted fresh petition was maintainable. The Court compared the prayers made in all three petitions and found that their basic purpose was identical. Changes in language and the addition of new grounds did not alter the fact that every petition sought to set aside the same Order-in-Original dated 27.09.2024.
Withdrawal Without Liberty Abandons the Article 226 Remedy
A litigant is ordinarily free to withdraw a writ petition. However, the legal consequence depends on whether the withdrawal is accompanied by permission to institute fresh proceedings on the same cause of action. Withdrawal with such liberty preserves the possibility of approaching the Court again, subject to limitations of limitation, maintainability, and other legal objections. An unconditional withdrawal indicates that the petitioner does not wish to continue pursuing that remedy.
The Court relied principally on Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior and Others, (1987) 1 SCR 200. The Supreme Court extended the principle underlying Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to writ proceedings. Although the Code does not directly govern Article 226 proceedings in every respect, its equitable principles may be applied where they promote the orderly administration of justice and prevent repeated litigation.
Under this principle, withdrawal of a writ petition without permission to file afresh amounts to abandonment of the Article 226 remedy in respect of that cause of action. It may not operate as strict res judicata because no decision has been rendered on the merits. It nevertheless prevents the petitioner from invoking the same extraordinary jurisdiction again against the same subject matter. In PSR Elecon, the first petition was withdrawn without reserving any right to return. That event became the foundation for rejecting the present petition.
Public Policy Prevents Repeated Writ Petitions on the Same Cause
The bar against a successive writ petition rests on public policy rather than a technical application of res judicata. If every withdrawn petition could be refiled with revised language or additional grounds, litigation could continue indefinitely. A party could test different formulations, withdraw whenever difficulty arose, and repeatedly return until it obtained a favourable Bench or procedural position.
The judgment referred to Mahanth Ram Kinkar Das, Disciple of Late Mahanth Ram Sewak Das v. State of Bihar and Others, 2017 SCC OnLine Pat 3680 (FB). That decision examined the distinction between strictly applying the Code of Civil Procedure and adopting its equitable principles in writ proceedings. The Code's procedural provisions do not automatically control Article 226, but principles advancing fairness, finality and public policy may be applied.
The authorities discussed therein, including Puran Singh v. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 205; Ramesh Chandra Sankla v. Vikram Cement, (2008) 14 SCC 58; Rita Mishra v. Director, Primary Education, Bihar, 1987 SCC OnLine Pat 159 = AIR 1988 Pat 26; and State of Bihar v. Devendra Sharma, (2020) 15 SCC 466, reinforce the same proposition. A litigant who voluntarily gives up a writ claim without obtaining liberty cannot ordinarily start a fresh round of proceedings on the same cause. The rule protects judicial time, consistency and the finality of procedural choices.
Later Liberty Could Not Erase the Earlier Abandonment
An important feature of the case was that the second writ petition had been withdrawn with liberty to file a better petition. Viewed in isolation, that permission might appear to support instituting the third petition. The difficulty was that the petitioner had already withdrawn its first challenge to the same adjudication order without any liberty to refile.
The later permission did not retrospectively cancel the legal effect of the first unconditional withdrawal. By the time the second petition was instituted, the petitioner had already abandoned the Article 226 remedy against that cause of action. Liberty obtained by withdrawing the second petition could not revive a remedy previously surrendered.
The ruling therefore underlines the need for precision when seeking withdrawal. If a petition suffers from defective drafting, omission of necessary parties, incomplete documents, or failure to challenge an essential proceeding, the application for withdrawal should expressly seek liberty to file a properly constituted fresh petition. That request must be made before the Court disposes of the first petition. A litigant cannot assume that liberty granted in a later proceeding will correct the absence of liberty in the original withdrawal.
New Grounds Do Not Create a New Cause When the Relief Remains the Same
The present petition contained grounds and prayers that were not expressed in the same manner as in the earlier proceedings. It directly challenged the show-cause notice and the notifications issued under Section 168A. It also alleged that the Order-in-Original was without jurisdiction and that a single Section 74 notice could not validly cover several financial years.
These additions did not alter the essential nature of the dispute. The Court compared the prayers and found that all three petitions targeted the same adjudication and sought substantially the same result. The petitioner could not convert an abandoned challenge into a new cause of action merely by adding legal grounds that could have been raised in the first petition.
This principle does not mean that every later event or genuinely independent cause of action is barred. A subsequent order, a fresh recovery measure involving an independent illegality, or a materially different statutory action may create a separate controversy. But a change in arguments is not the same as a change in cause of action. Where the impugned order, underlying dispute and substantial relief remain unchanged, additional grounds ordinarily do not create a fresh right to invoke Article 226.
Section 107 Could Not Be Avoided After the Appellate Period Had Passed
The petitioner had a statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act. An appeal must be filed within three months from communication of the adjudication order, and the Appellate Authority may permit a further period of one month on sufficient cause. Instead of pursuing that remedy within the prescribed period, the petitioner filed its first writ petition approximately one year after the date of the Order-in-Original.
The Court found no satisfactory explanation for this delay. It relied upon Orissa Mineral Development Co. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, AIR 1960 Ori 79 = (1960) 11 STC 12 (Ori) = 1959-VIL-15-ORI. That decision recognises that the existence of an alternative remedy does not impose an absolute bar upon writ jurisdiction, particularly where illegality or lack of jurisdiction is apparent. At the same time, Article 226 should not ordinarily be used to escape the consequences of statutory limitation after the period for appeal or revision has expired.
The writ jurisdiction is extraordinary and discretionary. It is not a general substitute for a statutory appeal, especially where disputed facts or detailed examination of tax records may be involved. An appellate authority can examine the factual record, reconsider findings and decide the legal objections within its statutory powers. A taxpayer who allows that remedy to lapse cannot ordinarily revive the controversy through an unexplained delayed writ and repeated withdrawals.
Calling the Order Void Did Not Automatically Reopen the Writ Door
The petitioner sought to overcome the procedural objections by characterising the adjudication order as without jurisdiction, without authority of law, and void. It also challenged the notifications extending the adjudication period. Allegations of jurisdictional error may justify writ intervention in an appropriate case, but such expressions alone do not require the Court to entertain the petition.
The Court examined the litigation history rather than accepting the characterisation at face value. The same adjudication order had already been challenged twice. The first challenge was brought after substantial delay and withdrawn without liberty. No reason was disclosed for that unconditional withdrawal. The petitioner could not restore access to Article 226 merely by labelling grounds that could have been raised earlier as “jurisdictional error”.
This part of the decision is important for GST litigation. Arguments concerning limitation, the competence of the adjudicating authority, the validity of notifications, or the use of one notice for multiple financial years may raise serious legal questions. But even a serious ground must be pursued through a maintainable proceeding. The strength of an argument on the merits does not automatically cure abandonment of the remedy, unexplained delay, or repeated invocation of the same writ jurisdiction.
Dismissal on Maintainability Did Not Validate the Tax Demand
The Court dismissed the petition as a successive writ seeking substantially identical relief after the earlier proceedings were withdrawn. It did not decide whether the Section 74 notice was valid, whether a single notice could cover multiple financial years, whether the Section 168A notifications were legally sustainable, or whether retrospective Section 16(5) affected the disputed ITC.
The judgment should therefore not be cited as approval of the Order-in-Original on merits. It establishes a procedural bar against reopening the same dispute through repeated writ petitions. The tax demand remained undisturbed because the challenge was not maintainable, not because the Court independently affirmed every legal or factual finding of the adjudicating authority.
The distinction is significant. A dismissal on merits decides the legal controversy presented to the Court. A dismissal for want of maintainability leaves the substantive issues undecided but prevents their examination in that proceeding. In practical terms, the demand may continue to operate, yet the judgment’s precedent concerns successive writ petitions, abandonment of the Article 226 remedy and the effect of delay, rather than the substantive correctness of the GST liability.
Withdrawal of a Writ Can Have Lasting Consequences
Before withdrawing a writ petition, the taxpayer and its counsel must consider whether they intend to abandon the challenge or file a corrected petition. If withdrawal is required to improve the drafting, add a necessary ground, include relevant documents or join a proper party, permission to file a fresh petition should be expressly requested. That permission must be clearly recorded in the Court’s order. Otherwise, the withdrawal may be treated as a final abandonment of the writ remedy on the same cause of action.
The statutory appeal period must also be kept in view. Filing a writ petition does not automatically extend or protect the limitation period for filing an appeal. If the writ is later withdrawn, the taxpayer may find that the time allowed for pursuing the statutory appeal has already expired. Where appropriate, a protective appeal should therefore be filed within limitation while the writ remedy is being considered or pursued.
The principle is clear. A litigant cannot repeatedly challenge the same order by withdrawing one petition and returning with another containing improved arguments. New grounds do not by themselves create a new cause of action, and liberty granted during a later withdrawal cannot ordinarily undo an earlier withdrawal made without liberty. The decision to withdraw a writ petition must therefore be taken as carefully as the original decision to file it.
CAclubindia
