TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the enhanced export duty could be claimed by the petitioner under Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 despite the contractual terms; (ii) whether the Court could set aside the arbitral award on the view that another interpretation was possible.
Issue (i): Whether the enhanced export duty could be claimed by the petitioner under Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 despite the contractual terms.
Analysis: Section 64A operates only unless a different intention appears from the contract. The agreement fixed inclusive rates and expressly covered all levies by local bodies and Government except a specified special duty, showing that the parties contemplated the contractual allocation of duty burden. The Court read the clause as excluding any right to rework the agreed price on account of later enhancement of export duty. Section 9 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, which permits price to be fixed by contract, supported that conclusion.
Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to recover the enhanced export duty under Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
Issue (ii): Whether the Court could set aside the arbitral award on the view that another interpretation was possible.
Analysis: The challenge to the award sought substitution of the Court's view for that of the arbitrator. The Court held that where two views are possible, an award cannot be interfered with merely because the Court prefers a different view, as such interference would exceed the permissible jurisdiction in proceedings under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
Conclusion: The arbitral award could not be disturbed on the ground that a different view was possible.
Final Conclusion: The objections to the award were rejected and the award was made the rule of the Court.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a contract shows a different intention regarding tax or duty burden, Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 does not override that contractual allocation, and an arbitral award cannot be set aside merely because the Court would have reached a different view on the same material.
TaxTMI 
