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 arbitral award, insofar as it declined to grant a declaration that the respondents were liable to bear the service tax demand, called for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. (ii) Whether the arbitral award, insofar as it declined to grant a declaration that the respondents were liable to bear the customs duty demand, called for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Issue (i): Whether the arbitral award, insofar as it declined to grant a declaration that the respondents were liable to bear the service tax demand, called for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Analysis: The declaratory relief was sought on the basis of a show-cause notice and before any final adjudication by the competent authority. The liability to service tax had not yet crystallized when the arbitral tribunal decided the matter, and the claim was in substance anticipatory. The settlement clause was read as an indemnity provision, not as a basis for fastening a presently uncrystallized tax burden on the respondents. The later departmental adjudication also rendered the issue academic.
Conclusion: No interference was warranted with the tribunal's refusal to grant the service tax declaration; the finding stood.
Issue (ii): Whether the arbitral award, insofar as it declined to grant a declaration that the respondents were liable to bear the customs duty demand, called for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Analysis: The customs duty issue also arose only from a show-cause notice and had not been finally adjudicated by the customs authorities when the tribunal rendered its award. The tribunal correctly treated the request as an anticipatory declaration outside the proper scope of arbitral determination, especially where the contractual documents placed responsibility on the claimant for statutory compliance and indemnity. Subsequent departmental proceedings ultimately fixed liability on the claimant, which reinforced the tribunal's approach.
Conclusion: No interference was warranted with the tribunal's refusal to grant the customs duty declaration; the finding stood.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the arbitral award failed, and the common original petitions were dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: A claim seeking a declaration that another party must bear a future tax or duty burden is premature unless the statutory liability has been finally adjudicated or crystallized by the competent authority; such a refusal by the arbitral tribunal does not attract interference under Section 34 absent patent illegality or perversity.
TaxTMI 
