https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771534 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not appropriate for adjudicating a disputed contractual claim for payment and refund where entitlement depends on contested facts. The petitioners produced no completion certificate or other foundational documentary proof to show completion of the work or an admitted liability for the amounts claimed. Because the dispute required factual determination on execution of the contract and quantification of dues, the HC declined to entertain the monetary claim and refused relief, leaving the petitioners to pursue remedies before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. en-us Wed, 23 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 May 2025 10:08:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771534 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not appropriate for adjudicating a disputed contractual claim for payment and refund where entitlement depends on contested facts. The petitioners produced no completion certificate or other foundational documentary proof to show completion of the work or an admitted liability for the amounts claimed. Because the dispute required factual determination on execution of the contract and quantification of dues, the HC declined to entertain the monetary claim and refused relief, leaving the petitioners to pursue remedies before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. Case-Laws GST Wed, 23 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771534