https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99668 The HC upheld the tribunal's rejection of limitation, holding that the cause of action arose when the additional cost crossed the contractual threshold and the claim was thereafter pursued through the contractual mechanism and arbitration. However, it set aside the award for patent illegality and want of reasons because the claimant produced no evidence of actual tax payment at the enhanced rates, no proof of the contractual annual deduction, and a claim statement could not itself prove the claim. The tribunal also failed to consider the material defence that service tax was not leviable under the relied-upon notifications, rendering the award unreasoned and unsustainable. en-us Tue, 12 May 2026 08:50:36 +0530 Tue, 12 May 2026 08:50:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99668 The HC upheld the tribunal's rejection of limitation, holding that the cause of action arose when the additional cost crossed the contractual threshold and the claim was thereafter pursued through the contractual mechanism and arbitration. However, it set aside the award for patent illegality and want of reasons because the claimant produced no evidence of actual tax payment at the enhanced rates, no proof of the contractual annual deduction, and a claim statement could not itself prove the claim. The tribunal also failed to consider the material defence that service tax was not leviable under the relied-upon notifications, rendering the award unreasoned and unsustainable. Highlights Indian Laws Tue, 12 May 2026 08:50:36 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99668