<?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 2009 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796123</link>
    <description>Section 34 review does not permit substitution of a plausible contractual interpretation merely because another view is possible; contractual reimbursement of GST paid on gas-transmission charges may therefore stand independently of statutory GST exigibility. However, reliance on GST deposit receipts whose admissibility remained undecided, without supporting returns, transaction records, or accounts, does not prove payment attributable to the relevant supplies and may render the finding perverse. Waiver requires intentional relinquishment of a known right, while estoppel requires representation, reliance, and alteration of position. Prior invoice payments required to maintain supply do not alone establish either defence or extinguish recurring claims. These evidentiary and contractual-bar defects render the arbitral award liable to be set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2026 08:27:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=914473" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 2009 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796123</link>
      <description>Section 34 review does not permit substitution of a plausible contractual interpretation merely because another view is possible; contractual reimbursement of GST paid on gas-transmission charges may therefore stand independently of statutory GST exigibility. However, reliance on GST deposit receipts whose admissibility remained undecided, without supporting returns, transaction records, or accounts, does not prove payment attributable to the relevant supplies and may render the finding perverse. Waiver requires intentional relinquishment of a known right, while estoppel requires representation, reliance, and alteration of position. Prior invoice payments required to maintain supply do not alone establish either defence or extinguish recurring claims. These evidentiary and contractual-bar defects render the arbitral award liable to be set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796123</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>