Amendment of writ petition refused where a belated new constitutional challenge would change the nature of the proceedings.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits amendment of pleadings only where it is necessary to determine the real controversy and, after commencement of trial, the due diligence requirement is satisfied. A writ petitioner seeking to add a fresh constitutional challenge to the proviso to Section 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act and a notification could not do so when the existing petition was confined to refund relief under the budgetary support scheme. Because the challenge was available from the outset, the proposed amendment would have changed the nature and character of the writ and introduced a new cause of action. The amendment was therefore refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to amend the writ petition to introduce a challenge to the proviso to Section 174(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Notification No. 21/2017-C.E. dated 18.07.2017.

Analysis: Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits amendment of pleadings where necessary for determining the real question in controversy, subject to the due diligence requirement after the commencement of trial. The proposed amendments sought to introduce a new constitutional challenge to statutory and notification-based provisions, whereas the existing writ petition was confined to refund relief under the budgetary support scheme. The proposed challenge was available from the outset, and permitting it at the advanced stage would alter the nature and character of the writ petition and introduce a different cause of action.

Conclusion: The amendment was not allowed and the application was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment that introduces a new and distinct cause of action or changes the nature of the proceedings, without satisfying the due diligence requirement, may be refused even if sought for a fuller adjudication.

---