https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395256 An arbitral award under Section 34 was not interfered with where the tribunal's contractual interpretation was plausible and the challenged claims were unsupported by reliable evidence. The Delhi High Court noted that the differential sales tax claim failed because the claimant did not prove the tax challans related exclusively to the respondent's supplies and the contract price was inclusive of taxes; no Form C obligation arose because the respondent was not shown to be a dealer or registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act. Claims for smart-card dues, unutilized cards, referral authentication kits, and post-expiry services were also rejected for lack of proof or contractual basis. en-us Tue, 12 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 May 2020 09:47:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395256 An arbitral award under Section 34 was not interfered with where the tribunal's contractual interpretation was plausible and the challenged claims were unsupported by reliable evidence. The Delhi High Court noted that the differential sales tax claim failed because the claimant did not prove the tax challans related exclusively to the respondent's supplies and the contract price was inclusive of taxes; no Form C obligation arose because the respondent was not shown to be a dealer or registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act. Claims for smart-card dues, unutilized cards, referral authentication kits, and post-expiry services were also rejected for lack of proof or contractual basis. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 12 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395256