Composite supply and GST reimbursement for street-light maintenance upheld, with interest awarded against the recipient authority.

The availability of an alternative remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction where the dispute involved contested facts, and the issue had already been settled in the petitioners' favour in an earlier decision affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Court further held that reimbursement of GST paid on street-light maintenance was payable because the service was a composite supply of goods and maintenance work, not a pure service covered by the exemption notification. On that basis, the respondents' refusal to reimburse the tax was unlawful, and the petitioners were entitled to reimbursement with interest at 9% from 01.07.2017.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was barred by the availability of an alternative remedy; (ii) whether the petitioners were entitled to reimbursement of GST paid on maintenance of street lights, together with interest.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition was barred by the availability of an alternative remedy

Analysis: The availability of an alternative remedy is a self-imposed rule of restraint and does not oust writ jurisdiction where the dispute involves contested facts and the relief sought is otherwise maintainable. The issue had also already been settled in the petitioners' favour in an earlier decision concerning the same subject matter, which had been affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Conclusion: The alternative remedy objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the petitioners were entitled to reimbursement of GST paid on maintenance of street lights, together with interest

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the petitioners' activity was "pure services" falling within the exemption notification, or a composite supply involving goods and services. The Court noted that the respondents' own affidavit accepted that the petitioners were rendering composite services involving repair and maintenance of street lights, and the earlier binding decision had held that no exemption operated and that the tax burden had to be borne by the recipient. On that basis, the respondents' failure to reimburse tax already paid was held to be unlawful.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to reimbursement of GST paid, with interest at 9% from 01.07.2017.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the municipal corporation was directed to refund the GST burden with interest, following the settled position on tax incidence for street-light maintenance services.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the service rendered is a composite supply involving goods and maintenance work, the exemption for pure services does not apply, and the tax burden, once paid by the service provider, must be reimbursed by the recipient.

---