TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the petition to set aside the arbitral award was barred by limitation; (ii) whether the award was liable to be set aside for want of evidence, inadequate reasoning, and failure to consider the defence raised in the statement of defence.
Issue (i): Whether the petition to set aside the arbitral award was barred by limitation.
Analysis: The cause of action for claiming relief on account of enhanced tax burden arose when the additional cost exceeded the contractual threshold and the claim was thereafter pursued under the contract. The challenge on limitation was assessed with reference to the contractual timeline and the subsequent invocation of arbitration. The petitioner's objection that the claim had been made beyond time was not accepted.
Conclusion: The objection of limitation was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether the award was liable to be set aside for want of evidence, inadequate reasoning, and failure to consider the defence raised in the statement of defence.
Analysis: The contractual claim required proof of additional cost actually incurred on account of the alleged tax variation. The record did not show proof of payment at enhanced rates, supporting returns, or material establishing that the claimed additional tax burden was incurred in the manner asserted. The award also failed to discuss the material relied upon, and the defence based on notifications denying service tax liability was neither noted nor dealt with. In the absence of evidence and reasons, the award was treated as perverse and contrary to the requirement of a reasoned award under Section 31(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Conclusion: The award was liable to be set aside.
Final Conclusion: The arbitral award could not be sustained because it was unsupported by evidence and reasons and did not address the material defence, so the petition succeeded and the award was annulled.
Ratio Decidendi: An arbitral award founded on no evidence, lacking intelligible reasons, and ignoring a material defence is perverse and liable to be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
