Writ jurisdiction is unsuitable for contested reimbursement claims when contract terms and correspondence do not establish admitted liability.

A writ petition for recovery of alleged service tax reimbursement and interest was held unsuitable where the written contract did not impose such liability and the correspondence did not amount to an admission. The dispute turned on contested facts requiring evidence and cross-examination, making Article 226 relief inappropriate. The High Court noted that oral evidence could not override the written material in view of Section 91 of the Evidence Act, and left the claimant to pursue civil remedies if available.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable for recovery of alleged service tax reimbursement and interest when the contract and correspondence did not show an admitted liability and the dispute turned on contested facts.

Analysis: The written agreement did not stipulate that the respondent was liable to reimburse service tax, and the correspondence relied upon by the petitioner did not amount to an admission of such liability. The claim for interest stood on the same footing. The dispute therefore depended on substantial questions of fact requiring evidence and cross-examination, which were not suitable for determination in writ proceedings. In such circumstances, the High Court declined to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction and left the petitioner to pursue civil remedies, if available. Oral evidence could not override the written material in the face of Section 91 of the Evidence Act.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for recovery of the claimed service tax amount and interest, and the claim was rejected in writ jurisdiction.

---