Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
