Electricity network contributions remain revenue expenditure where ownership and maintenance stay with the electricity board, supporting business prof...
The HC dismissed the petition and upheld the impugned arbitral awards rendered in favour of the respondent, enforcing the statutory variation clause in the contract. The Arbitrator found that similarly situated contractors had mistakenly invoiced GST at 5% instead of the applicable 12% and were entitled to the 7% differential; those awards were challenged by the petitioner but the HC, by a common order, dismissed the Section 34 challenges and held the awards free from patent illegality and not contrary to public policy. Accordingly, the arbitral awards stand enforced and the petitioner's challenge is dismissed, entitling the respondents to recovery of the differential GST as adjudicated.
The HC dismissed the petition and upheld the impugned arbitral awards rendered in favour of the respondent, enforcing the statutory variation clause in the contract. The Arbitrator found that similarly situated contractors had mistakenly invoiced GST at 5% instead of the applicable 12% and were entitled to the 7% differential; those awards were challenged by the petitioner but the HC, by a common order, dismissed the Section 34 challenges and held the awards free from patent illegality and not contrary to public policy. Accordingly, the arbitral awards stand enforced and the petitioner's challenge is dismissed, entitling the respondents to recovery of the differential GST as adjudicated.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
