Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Revenue-sharing under a participative railway infrastructure arrangement was treated as a joint venture-like model, not as business support service, because freight collections were shared as a return on capital investment with profit and not as consideration for any identified service. The text notes that there was no service provider-recipient relationship or direct quid pro quo, so the demand on that footing was not sustainable. It also records that a bona fide belief, supported by prior Tribunal rulings on similar arrangements, defeated suppression, making the extended limitation period unavailable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.