TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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: Whether a dispute regarding deduction and refund of BOCW cess, arising from a construction contract and turning on the applicability of the BOCW enactments and related rules, is arbitrable and fit for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Analysis: The controversy was held to be governed substantially by the statutory framework under the Building and Other Construction Workers enactments, including the question whether the work fell within the exclusion in the definition of building or other construction work. The deduction was made pursuant to statutory provisions, government notifications, and the contractual stipulation incorporated in the agreement, and the amount had already been deposited with the competent State authority. The Court held that disputes centred on statutory liability, levy, collection, and applicability of the cess are matters for the competent statutory mechanism and not a pure contractual dispute amenable to arbitration at the referral stage.
Conclusion: The request for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator was rejected, as the dispute was held not fit for reference under Section 11(6) and was required to be pursued before the statutory authority.
TaxTMI 
