https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767463 An arbitration clause did not bar writ relief because the dispute concerned a post-contract shift in tax incidence, the respondent was an Article 12 entity, and the material facts were clear from the record. The Court held that the railway had to reimburse the service tax component arising after the contracts were concluded, treating service tax as an indirect levy whose burden follows the law in force and construing the tender clauses as protecting against contractor default rather than shifting a later-imposed tax. By analogy to Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, the post-contract statutory change could not be used to impose an unintended tax burden on the contractor. Reimbursement with interest was ordered. en-us Fri, 07 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Mar 2025 06:45:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767463 An arbitration clause did not bar writ relief because the dispute concerned a post-contract shift in tax incidence, the respondent was an Article 12 entity, and the material facts were clear from the record. The Court held that the railway had to reimburse the service tax component arising after the contracts were concluded, treating service tax as an indirect levy whose burden follows the law in force and construing the tender clauses as protecting against contractor default rather than shifting a later-imposed tax. By analogy to Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, the post-contract statutory change could not be used to impose an unintended tax burden on the contractor. Reimbursement with interest was ordered. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 07 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767463