The Goods and Services Tax (“GST”) was introduced with the constitutional and economic objective of creating a harmonised indirect-tax regime across India. The expression “One Nation, One Tax” came to symbolise not merely the subsumption of multiple indirect taxes into a common framework, but also the expectation of uniformity, predictability, and consistency in the administration and adjudication of tax laws. This paper examines the implications of divergent judicial approaches to disputes concerning reversal of Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) attributable to exempt supplies under Section 17(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rules 42 and 43 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. It compares, at a high level, the approaches adopted in Niraj Dilip Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Hemraj Rice Mill v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX, Bardhaman Division. Although the cases differ in their factual and procedural settings, both raise a common question concerning the judicial response where the statutory methodology governing ITC reversal is alleged not to have been followed. The paper situates this comparison within the doctrine of alternate remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution and considers the practical significance of statutory pre-deposit requirements. It argues that judicial consistency in GST does not require identical outcomes in every case; rather, it requires coherent and predictable application of common legal principles to materially comparable circumstances. Divergent thresholds for constitutional intervention may otherwise create territorially differentiated access to judicial review. The paper recommends clearer standards for Article 226 intervention in GST disputes, greater procedural discipline in applying Rules 42 and 43, reasoned adjudication orders, improved administrative standardisation, and authoritative resolution of recurring doctrinal conflicts. These measures can strengthen the uniformity, predictability, and institutional coherence expected from a national GST regime.