https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=79004 Res judicata did not bar the later writ because the refund-related adjudication order was passed after the earlier petition had been withdrawn, so the subsequent claim arose only after the intervening order. However, a writ confined to interest on the refunded/seized amount was held not maintainable where the claimant had available statutory and civil remedies. The Court noted that the interest claim should have been pursued in appeal against the adjudication order or by civil suit, and that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not used for a standalone monetary claim when ordinary remedies exist. The petition was therefore dismissed on maintainability grounds. en-us Mon, 20 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=79004 Res judicata did not bar the later writ because the refund-related adjudication order was passed after the earlier petition had been withdrawn, so the subsequent claim arose only after the intervening order. However, a writ confined to interest on the refunded/seized amount was held not maintainable where the claimant had available statutory and civil remedies. The Court noted that the interest claim should have been pursued in appeal against the adjudication order or by civil suit, and that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not used for a standalone monetary claim when ordinary remedies exist. The petition was therefore dismissed on maintainability grounds. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 20 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=79004