Differential GST reimbursement on an ongoing works contract upheld where the revised tax burden was ed and no disputed facts remained.

Enhanced GST on an ongoing works contract was treated as reimbursable where the Government entity accepted liability for the revised burden and the petitioner had already paid tax at the higher rate. The Court also rejected the objection based on an alternative contractual remedy, since no disputed question of fact survived and writ relief was not barred on that ground. Payment of the differential GST for the relevant period was directed within the stipulated time, with interest payable on delay.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to reimbursement of the additional GST of 6% for the period 01.01.2022 to 30.09.2022. (ii) Whether the writ petition was not maintainable on the ground of availability of an alternative contractual remedy.

Issue (i): Entitlement to reimbursement of the enhanced GST rate depended on the applicable GST notification and the liability of the Government entity to bear the revised tax burden on the running bills.

Analysis: The GST rate on the petitioner's works was enhanced from 12% to 18% from 01.01.2022. The respondent entity had also accepted liability to pay the additional 6%, and the State GST department acknowledged that the enhanced rate was payable by the Government entity. The Court found that the petitioner had already paid GST at the enhanced rate and was entitled to recover the difference for the relevant period.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to payment of the differential GST at 6% from 01.01.2022 to 30.09.2022, with interest becoming payable if payment was not made within the stipulated period.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner should be relegated to the contractual dispute resolution mechanism because of an alternative remedy.

Analysis: The Court found that no disputed question of fact arose and, in such circumstances, the existence of an alternative remedy under the agreement did not bar writ relief.

Conclusion: The objection to writ maintainability on the ground of alternative remedy was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of by directing payment of the GST differential to the petitioner within three months, failing which interest would accrue on the delayed amount.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the tax rate applicable to an ongoing contract is enhanced and the liable entity acknowledges the revised burden, the writ court may direct payment of the differential tax amount notwithstanding an alternative contractual remedy when no disputed question of fact survives.

---