https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781292 A litigant who had earlier opportunities to seek exemption from the mandatory statutory pre-deposit could not revive that omission in a later writ petition. The Court applied constructive res judicata and treated the successive challenge as an abuse of process because the petitioner had not sought that specific relief in the prior writ proceedings, before the Supreme Court, or after remand. It further noted that the appeal had been dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement itself, not merely on limitation. The successive writ petition was therefore not maintainable, and the appellate order was sustained. en-us Mon, 03 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Nov 2025 08:14:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781292 A litigant who had earlier opportunities to seek exemption from the mandatory statutory pre-deposit could not revive that omission in a later writ petition. The Court applied constructive res judicata and treated the successive challenge as an abuse of process because the petitioner had not sought that specific relief in the prior writ proceedings, before the Supreme Court, or after remand. It further noted that the appeal had been dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement itself, not merely on limitation. The successive writ petition was therefore not maintainable, and the appellate order was sustained. Case-Laws GST Mon, 03 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781292