Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
Cross country pipeline classification and ITC entitlement: pipelines outside factory treated as immovable, ITC disallowed under Section 17 restriction...
Arbitral awards on prolongation costs, GST reimbursement, minimum-wage escalation, Environmental Compensation Charges and taxes were upheld under Section 34 because the tribunal had adopted a plausible view on the contract, delay attribution and quantification of damages. The court treated the prolongation-cost methodology as a permissible estimate based on record and industry practice, and refused re-appreciation of evidence. It also sustained reimbursement for GST introduced during the extended period, held that a minimum-wage escalation bar could not defeat compensation for employer-caused delay, and accepted ECC as an additional charge not clearly barred by the exclusion clause. The majority award was treated as binding, and no patent illegality or perversity was shown.
Arbitral awards on prolongation costs, GST reimbursement, minimum-wage escalation, Environmental Compensation Charges and taxes were upheld under Section 34 because the tribunal had adopted a plausible view on the contract, delay attribution and quantification of damages. The court treated the prolongation-cost methodology as a permissible estimate based on record and industry practice, and refused re-appreciation of evidence. It also sustained reimbursement for GST introduced during the extended period, held that a minimum-wage escalation bar could not defeat compensation for employer-caused delay, and accepted ECC as an additional charge not clearly barred by the exclusion clause. The majority award was treated as binding, and no patent illegality or perversity was shown.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
