Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
