Content ownership determines GST treatment of printed publications: customer-supplied text is a taxable printing service, owned content is exempt good...
Employee recoveries, input tax credit and notice pay recovery under GST: AAR distinguishes taxable supplies from non-taxable perquisites and penalties...
Arbitrator exceeded contractual scope by creating a non-existent clause to deduct shortfall in Minimum Guaranteed CENVAT Credit (MGCC) from invoices; the correct legal principle is that arbitrators must decide within the four corners of the contract and cannot add terms. The arbitrator wrongly treated the tax component as excluded from MGCC and failed to apply clause 14.5.2 correctly, which only denies reimbursement if documents to avail CENVAT are not produced. Because the arbitrator ventured beyond contractual terms and committed patent illegality, the arbitral award was set aside.
Arbitrator exceeded contractual scope by creating a non-existent clause to deduct shortfall in Minimum Guaranteed CENVAT Credit (MGCC) from invoices; the correct legal principle is that arbitrators must decide within the four corners of the contract and cannot add terms. The arbitrator wrongly treated the tax component as excluded from MGCC and failed to apply clause 14.5.2 correctly, which only denies reimbursement if documents to avail CENVAT are not produced. Because the arbitrator ventured beyond contractual terms and committed patent illegality, the arbitral award was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
