https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764337 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. en-us Mon, 23 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Jul 2025 13:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764337 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. Case-Laws GST Mon, 23 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764337