Blanket GST reimbursement cannot be directed under Article 226 without examining contract-specific facts.

M/s Mycon Construction Limited (MCL) sought reimbursement of alleged differential GST on works contracts awarded by various public authorities, including NWKRTC, and obtained directions from the Single Judge for calculation and reimbursement of the claimed tax difference.

NWKRTC appealed, relying on contract terms that made quoted rates inclusive of taxes and barred escalation, and contending that MCL had completed the works, accepted payment without reservation, and raised its claim years later.

The Division Bench noted that the relevant contracts had not been placed before the Single Judge and that the claim raised factual and limitation issues.

1. Whether the Single Judge could grant contract-specific GST reimbursement directions without examining the relevant contracts and other material facts.

2. Whether MCL’s reimbursement claim could properly be determined in proceedings under Article 226 where contractual and limitation disputes remained unresolved.

The Court considered the jurisdiction exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution and the appellate jurisdiction invoked under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act.

It applied the principle that contractual claims involving disputed facts—including contract terms, the contents of bills and payments, and limitation—should not be determined in writ proceedings in the absence of examination of the relevant material.

Although the Single Judge had relied on Sri Chandrashekaraiah v. State of Karnataka and MCL cited Indu Construction v. Nagpur Improvement Trust, the Division Bench did not decide the substantive tax or reimbursement rule arising from those authorities.

The Single Judge issued general directions without considering the terms of each contract or the circumstances of the individual claims.

In NWKRTC’s case, the contracts reportedly required rates to include taxes and disallowed escalation; NWKRTC also asserted that MCL had accepted payment without protest and raised its claim years after completion.

The Court considered it necessary to examine, among other matters, whether the claims were time-barred and whether post-GST bills already included GST.

Because those matters required assessment of contract-specific facts, the blanket directions could not stand as against NWKRTC.

The Court did not decide whether MCL was substantively entitled to reimbursement; MCL remained free to pursue remedies available in law.

The order was limited to NWKRTC and did not prevent the other respondents from challenging the Single Judge’s order in accordance with law.