https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767463 The Karnataka HC ruled that an arbitration clause could not bar writ jurisdiction in a service tax reimbursement dispute involving Railways. The court held that when service tax liability arose due to legal regime changes post-contract (from positive to negative list w.e.f. 1.7.2012), the service recipient (Railways) must bear the additional tax burden. Drawing analogy from Section 64A of Sale of Goods Act, 1930, the court directed Railways to reimburse service tax amounts paid by the contractor with 9% interest per annum, emphasizing that new tax liabilities from state action should be borne by service recipients. en-us Fri, 07 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Mar 2025 06:45:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767463 The Karnataka HC ruled that an arbitration clause could not bar writ jurisdiction in a service tax reimbursement dispute involving Railways. The court held that when service tax liability arose due to legal regime changes post-contract (from positive to negative list w.e.f. 1.7.2012), the service recipient (Railways) must bear the additional tax burden. Drawing analogy from Section 64A of Sale of Goods Act, 1930, the court directed Railways to reimburse service tax amounts paid by the contractor with 9% interest per annum, emphasizing that new tax liabilities from state action should be borne by service recipients. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 07 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767463