<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2021 (7) TMI 235 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409393</link>
    <description>Delhi HC examined whether a catering service provider was contractually bound to supply welcome drinks at the outset of the licence and whether IRCTC could adjust related charges. The court treated the tender documents, later policy correspondence, and the arbitral record as supporting the view that the welcome drink obligation was not an express initial contractual duty, so the service provider&#039;s claim and rejection of IRCTC&#039;s adjustment were sustainable. It also considered whether GST paid on meal production charges was reimbursable, and accepted that the contract and Railway Board circulars contemplated reimbursement of tax actually deposited under the post-GST regime. No ground for interference under Section 34 was made out.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2025 11:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=648857" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (7) TMI 235 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409393</link>
      <description>Delhi HC examined whether a catering service provider was contractually bound to supply welcome drinks at the outset of the licence and whether IRCTC could adjust related charges. The court treated the tender documents, later policy correspondence, and the arbitral record as supporting the view that the welcome drink obligation was not an express initial contractual duty, so the service provider&#039;s claim and rejection of IRCTC&#039;s adjustment were sustainable. It also considered whether GST paid on meal production charges was reimbursable, and accepted that the contract and Railway Board circulars contemplated reimbursement of tax actually deposited under the post-GST regime. No ground for interference under Section 34 was made out.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409393</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>