Writ maintainability for admitted GST differential: alternative contractual remedy did not bar reimbursement of the enhanced tax component.

Where the GST rate increased from 12% to 18% and the public entity admitted liability for the additional 6%, the writ court held that an alternative contractual remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction because no disputed question of fact remained. The petitioner was entitled to reimbursement of the GST differential for the period from 01.01.2022 to 30.09.2022, since only the enhanced tax component remained unpaid on running bills. The Court also directed payment within the time fixed, with interest if the amount was not paid within that period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the objection of an alternative remedy under the contract. (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to reimbursement of the additional GST differential of 6% for the period from 01.01.2022 to 30.09.2022.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the objection of an alternative remedy under the contract.

Analysis: The dispute did not involve any disputed question of fact. The grievance arose from the admitted increase in GST rate and the respondents' failure to pay the enhanced component, so the petitioner was not required to be relegated to the contractual dispute resolution mechanism.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the objection based on alternative remedy was not accepted.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to reimbursement of the additional GST differential of 6% for the period from 01.01.2022 to 30.09.2022.

Analysis: The applicable GST rate stood enhanced from 12% to 18% with effect from 01.01.2022, and the respondents were shown to have continued paying only 12% on running bills. The public entity had also acknowledged liability to pay the additional 6% from 01.01.2022, leaving only implementation of the enhanced rate differential.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to payment of the GST differential at 6% for the stated period, together with interest if payment was delayed beyond the period granted by the Court.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed to the extent of directing payment of the GST differential, and the respondents were obliged to clear the additional tax component within the time fixed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the liability to bear enhanced GST is admitted and no disputed question of fact survives, the existence of an alternative contractual remedy does not bar exercise of writ jurisdiction to direct reimbursement of the tax differential.

---