Limitation plea required fresh writ adjudication after the court had not considered an available legal ground in the GST challenge.

The writ petition required fresh adjudication because the Single Judge had confined consideration to the constitutional validity of Section 174 of the Kerala State GST Act, 2017 and had not examined the additional limitation ground. As the limitation plea had been raised before the assessing authority and involved a question of law, it remained an available ground for decision. The writ appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the writ petition was restored for consideration of the unaddressed grounds, including limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be restored for consideration of the additional ground of limitation along with the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The challenge before the Single Judge had been confined to the constitutional validity of Section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The limitation plea had been raised before the assessing authority and involved a question of law. Since that ground had not been considered in the impugned judgment, the writ petition required fresh adjudication on the other available grounds, particularly limitation.

Conclusion: The writ appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the writ petition was restored for fresh consideration by the Single Judge on the unconsidered grounds, including limitation.

---