Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a construction contractor, had approached the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court against the U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd., seeking multiple reliefs concerning a bid notice dated 18.03.2023 and related contractual grievances. By the time of the hearing, the respondent informed the Court that the bid notice itself had already been cancelled, and the petitioner did not press the relief concerning it.

Among the remaining reliefs pressed, the parties disputed whether there was a discrepancy in the deposit of GST amounts as reflected on the GST portal — a factual matter contested between the petitioner and the Corporation's counsel — connected to a broader dispute over completion and payment for contract work already executed.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the High Court, in writ jurisdiction, should adjudicate a disputed factual question about discrepancies in GST portal deposits arising out of a contractual relationship.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The contract work had been completed and a satisfactory-completion certificate issued by the opposite party, entitling the petitioner to the reliefs sought.

Respondent's Arguments

  • There was a difference in the deposit of GST amounts reflected on the GST portal, a fact disputed by the petitioner's counsel.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that a dispute arising out of a contract between the parties — including whether the work was completed to satisfaction, and the disputed GST-deposit discrepancy — is a matter into whose merits a writ court should not enter.
  • It directed the petitioner to approach the Managing Director of the U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. with its grievance, leaving it to that authority to take a decision keeping the contract terms in mind.
  • It further clarified that if still aggrieved, the petitioner could invoke the arbitration clause in the contract; the writ petition was disposed of on this basis.

Important Clarification

This order does not resolve, or express any view on, whether or how the disputed GST-deposit discrepancy should be treated — it declines to go there at all, on the settled principle that a writ court is not the appropriate forum for disputed factual questions arising from a contractual relationship. The takeaway for contractors is procedural: such GST-portal or contract-payment disputes should first be raised with the counterparty administratively, with arbitration (where available under the contract) as the fallback, rather than a writ petition.

Sections Involved

  • Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 (and its limits in contractual disputes)
  • General contract and arbitration principles — no specific GST-law provision was adjudicated

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of without a decision on merits — the petitioner was directed to approach the Corporation administratively, with liberty to invoke arbitration if still aggrieved.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
  • Case No.: Writ-C No. 2597 of 2023
  • Coram: Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manish Kumar
  • Date of Order: 06.04.2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.