Electrical Contractor's GST Remittance Mandamus Plea Rejected, Alternative Legal Paths Advised for Payment Resolution

The SC dismissed the writ petition filed by an electrical contractor seeking mandamus to compel GST remittance. The court held it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed contractual payment facts and recommended the petitioner pursue alternative legal remedies for resolving the GST payment dispute with the respondents.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the liability of the respondents to remit GST at specific rates to the petitioner for work executed under a tender contract, and the interpretation of the terms of the contract/agreement between the parties.

Issue 1: Liability to remit GST

The petitioner, a registered Class A Electrical Contractor, sought a mandamus to direct the respondents to remit GST at the rates of 12% and 18% for work executed under a tender contract. The petitioner claimed that the respondents failed to remit the GST amount owed to them, despite being the successful bidder for the project. The petitioner argued that the liability to remit GST depended on the terms of the contract/agreement between the parties. However, the court clarified that it does not have jurisdiction to decide disputed questions of fact regarding payment obligations under the contract. The court stated that if the petitioner is aggrieved by non-payment, the remedy lies elsewhere, not before the court. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, finding no substance in the petitioner's claim.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition as it lacked jurisdiction to decide disputed questions of fact regarding the payment obligations under the contract between the petitioner and the respondents. The court emphasized that the remedy for non-payment of money lies elsewhere and not within its jurisdiction.

---