9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sought to challenge the award of a sole arbitrator dated 20 May 2011. 2. The Respondent had awarded a contract to the Appellant in connection with a project for the Flare System for a project called the Visakh Refinery Clean Fuel Project. The claim before the arbitral tribunal pertained to the service tax component. 3. Clause 1.1 of the contractual terms and conditions specified that the unit rates were inclusive of all taxes, duties, octroi, cess, levies etc. except for service tax. Moreover, Cenvatable Service Tax was to be extra which was to be reimbursed by the Respondent at actuals against the submission of documentary evidence in line with Clause 3.2.2 of the special conditions of contract. Details of the service tax furnished by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of OWNER. In case Owner is not able to avail Cenvatable credit based on documentation furnished by the CONTRACTOR then such amount shall not be reimbursed. iii) ......... iv) CENVATABLE Service Tax given in the Price Part shall be subject to the statutory variation in service tax subsequent to submission of last price bid." 4. Clause 2.2.4 required bidders to resolve all clarifications and queries and to submit their bids in total compliance with the bidding documents without deviations, stipulations or clarifications. Clause 5.4.1 provided that the bidder was responsible for the bid submitted and no relief or consideration could be given for the errors and omissions made inadvertently or advertently. 5. The Appellant submitted the deta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the condition of the contract that Cenvatable Service Tax will be paid on actuals had to be read in conjunction with the SP2 form; for, if the entirety of the service tax was to be reimbursed on actuals, then there was no reason to mention the amount in the bid. Hence, the arbitrator held that it was not open to the Appellant to unilaterally alter the purchase order and even assuming that the Appellant had committed a mistake, it was not entitled to claim in excess of what was stipulated in the contract. 6. The Learned Single Judge has dismissed the Arbitration Petition, holding that the view of the arbitrator was a possible interpretation of the terms of contract and that the Court under Section 34 would not hence be justified in taking a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f contract. Clause 1.1 also specifically incorporated a reference to the details of service tax furnished by the Appellant along with its offer in Form SP2 of the schedule of rates enclosed to the letter of acceptance. In this background, subclause (i) of Clause 3.2.2 of the special conditions required bidders to quote the Cenvatable Service Tax in Form SP2 of the price schedule. The object of requiring the bidder to quote the service tax payable was obviously to indicate the extent of the liability, if any, of the Respondent as the owner. However, actual reimbursement was to be against the submission of cenvatable documents. The contention of the Appellant that the amount of Rs.25.30 lacs mentioned in Form SP2 was only a guideline and not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
