<?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>2026 (7) TMI 1050 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795164</link>
    <description>Pre-existing excise-duty and customs-duty exemptions must be reflected in tender estimates if a State seeks to account for them in a lump-sum works contract. Where tender and acceptance documents contain only a lump-sum price, without item-wise rates or a tax-component break-up, the contractual value cannot be revised after completion to recover an alleged unintended exemption benefit arising from the State&#039;s own estimating error. An Essentiality Certificate may undermine a claimed lack of awareness of the exemption. Belated revival of dropped audit objections cannot support withholding a contractor&#039;s security deposit or continuing recovery enquiries founded on the same alleged benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2026 08:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=912368" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 1050 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795164</link>
      <description>Pre-existing excise-duty and customs-duty exemptions must be reflected in tender estimates if a State seeks to account for them in a lump-sum works contract. Where tender and acceptance documents contain only a lump-sum price, without item-wise rates or a tax-component break-up, the contractual value cannot be revised after completion to recover an alleged unintended exemption benefit arising from the State&#039;s own estimating error. An Essentiality Certificate may undermine a claimed lack of awareness of the exemption. Belated revival of dropped audit objections cannot support withholding a contractor&#039;s security deposit or continuing recovery enquiries founded on the same alleged benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795164</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>