Independent writ grounds require merits consideration where an earlier decision resolved only one issue, making remand appropriate.

A writ petition challenging notices proposing refixation of compounded tax could not be treated as fully concluded by an earlier batch decision that addressed only the validity of Section 174 of the Kerala State GST Act. The remaining independent grounds had not been separately examined, so they required fresh adjudication on their merits. The writ appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the petition was restored for de novo consideration of the unresolved issues, with interim protection revived.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was liable to be remitted for fresh consideration of grounds other than the challenge to the validity of Section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act.

Analysis: The challenge to the notices proposing refixation of compounded tax involved grounds that were distinct from the question of validity of Section 174. The earlier dismissal of the writ petition rested on a prior batch decision, but that decision covered only the constitutional validity issue. Since the other grounds had not been independently considered, a fresh adjudication on those issues was warranted.

Conclusion: The writ appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the writ petition was restored for fresh consideration on the remaining points.

Final Conclusion: The matter was remitted for a de novo decision on the issues not already covered by the earlier batch judgment, and the interim protection stood revived.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a writ petition is disposed of by reliance on a prior decision that answers only one issue, the remaining independent grounds must still be considered on their merits, and remand is appropriate if they were not adjudicated.

---