https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279651 Where a service recipient was treated as the assessee under the service tax regime, it could not unilaterally deduct service tax from the contractor's bills in the absence of an express contractual stipulation authorising such recovery. The contract generally placed tax burdens on the contractor, but it contained no specific deduction clause, and Clause 9.3 did not create a right of reimbursement by deduction. The arbitral award allowing the deduction was founded on misreading the agreement and ignoring the statutory incidence of service tax, so the HC held it was liable to be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. en-us Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Mar 2019 16:42:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279651 Where a service recipient was treated as the assessee under the service tax regime, it could not unilaterally deduct service tax from the contractor's bills in the absence of an express contractual stipulation authorising such recovery. The contract generally placed tax burdens on the contractor, but it contained no specific deduction clause, and Clause 9.3 did not create a right of reimbursement by deduction. The arbitral award allowing the deduction was founded on misreading the agreement and ignoring the statutory incidence of service tax, so the HC held it was liable to be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279651