Limited Section 34 review: arbitral findings on input tax credit and supporting documents were not perverse, so the award stood.

Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an arbitral award can be interfered with only on limited grounds such as patent illegality, perversity or conflict with the public policy of India, and the court will not reappreciate evidence as an appellate forum. Applying that standard, the Delhi HC upheld the award because the Majority Arbitral Tribunal had plausibly found that the petitioner had not taken steps to avail input tax credit, including by approaching the relevant authorities, and had also relied on the respondent's documents and reimbursement of CENVAT and VAT amounts. The challenge was therefore treated as an impermissible attempt to revisit factual findings, and no ground for interference was made out.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitral award suffered from patent illegality or perversity under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the finding that the petitioner had not taken steps to avail input tax credit and that the documents furnished were sufficient.

Analysis: The challenge was confined to the narrow jurisdiction under Section 34 of the 1996 Act. The Court reiterated that an arbitral award may be interfered with only on limited grounds, including conflict with the public policy of India, patent illegality, or perversity, and that the Court does not sit in appeal over the award. The Majority Arbitral Tribunal had recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner had not made any effort to avail the input tax credit, including by approaching the concerned authorities, and had also noted that the respondent had furnished the relevant documents and that the petitioner had reimbursed amounts towards CENVAT and VAT. On that basis, the Tribunal rejected the claim of shortfall. The Court held that this was a plausible and reasonable view on the material before the Tribunal, and that the objections raised amounted only to an impermissible request for reappreciation of evidence.

Conclusion: The award did not suffer from patent illegality or perversity, and no ground for interference under Section 34 was made out.

---