https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766782 A writ petition under Article 226 was held maintainable despite an alternative contractual remedy because no disputed questions of fact required adjudication, so the petitioner was not relegated to the contractual dispute forum. On the GST issue, the Court accepted that excess tax had been paid for the relevant period and that the applicable liability supported reimbursement of the differential amount at 6% for the specified period. The respondents were directed to pay the differential GST within three months, failing which interest at 6% per annum would apply. en-us Mon, 10 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Jun 2025 10:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766782 A writ petition under Article 226 was held maintainable despite an alternative contractual remedy because no disputed questions of fact required adjudication, so the petitioner was not relegated to the contractual dispute forum. On the GST issue, the Court accepted that excess tax had been paid for the relevant period and that the applicable liability supported reimbursement of the differential amount at 6% for the specified period. The respondents were directed to pay the differential GST within three months, failing which interest at 6% per annum would apply. Case-Laws GST Mon, 10 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766782