Article 226 cannot resolve GST reimbursement claims without examining the governing contracts and facts.

M/s Apoorva Constructions Co. (ACC) sought reimbursement of alleged differential GST on works performed under contracts with various public authorities, including KSRTC.

ACC classified the contracts by when they were entered into and claimed that some contract prices were based on pre-GST rates.

The writ petition did not include the individual contracts, though it listed the relevant works.

The Single Judge allowed the petition by applying directions issued in Sri Chandrashekaraiah v. State of Karnataka, without examining the specific contracts.

KSRTC appealed, relying on tender terms that stated the quoted rates were inclusive of taxes and on the fact that ACC had raised GST-inclusive bills and accepted payment before claiming the differential.

1. Whether the Single Judge could direct consideration and reimbursement of differential GST without examining the relevant contracts and transaction-specific facts.

2. Whether ACC’s contractual GST claims were suitable for determination in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court applied the principle that contractual disputes requiring examination of the particular contract and relevant facts cannot be determined in a factual vacuum in proceedings under Article 226.

It considered the tender terms, which addressed the treatment of taxes, and the parties’ conduct, including the GST-inclusive bills and payments.

The Court did not determine the substantive effect of the GST legislation or decide whether ACC was entitled to reimbursement; it noted that the directions made in Sri Chandrashekaraiah had been followed without scrutiny of the contracts in this case.

The ACC’s claim depended on whether each contract’s price and terms entitled it to additional payment following the introduction of GST.

The contracts were not before the Single Judge, and the tender terms cited by KSRTC indicated that rates were inclusive of taxes; ACC had also raised GST-inclusive bills and accepted payment before making its later claims.

The Court held that these matters, along with KSRTC’s objection that the claims were an afterthought, required contract-specific examination.

The Single Judge’s blanket reliance on Sri Chandrashekaraiah did not undertake that examination, making it inappropriate to sustain the order against KSRTC in writ proceedings.

The Court did not decide the merits of ACC’s reimbursement claim.

The order was limited to KSRTC; the other respondents could challenge the Single Judge’s order in accordance with law, and ACC remained free to pursue its available remedies.