Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. Respondent further submits that petitioner has erroneously equated the payment terms, which regulated only the cash flow and execution stages, with the value of goods liable to VAT un- der the DVAT framework. It is contended that the contract price, as clearly stated in the Letter of Acceptance and the Agreement, was inclusive of all taxes and duties. There was no contractual provision authorizing petitioner to withhold or recover any addi- tional amount on account of DVAT, except the statutory tax de- duction at source (TDS), which was duly effected from the 1st to the 4th Running Account Bills. Respondent further pleaded that the Arbitral Tribunal had duly considered the relevant provisions of the DVAT Act and Rules, including the incidence of tax, tim- ing of issuance of invoices, withholding tax provisions, and pay- ment obligations under the contract. The Tribunal also examined the DVAT returns filed by respondent, along with all relevant contractual and correspondence records exchanged between the parties. It is further asserted that the impugned Award has been passed after due consideration of all material evidence and docu- ments, in accordance with the contractual terms and applicable law. Hence, the Award cannot be said to suffer from any perver- sity, illegality, or violation of public policy of India. On these premises, respondent has prayed for dismissal of the objection petition with costs.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER ARBTN 5488/2018 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page No.8 of 24 Patiala House Court, New Delhi

10. Written submissions were filed on behalf of petitioner reiterating the contentions raised in the petition. It is argued that the Run- ning Account (R.A.) Bills raised by respondent were inclusive of VAT, and the total value of the 24 tax invoices amounted to Rs.8.96 crores, which also represented the final contract value as confirmed vide letter dated 31.10.2013 issued jointly by peti- tioner and respondent, and further reflected in the completion certificate dated 28.12.2015. It has been submitted that payment was to be made only for the works actually executed by respon- dent, and any accretion in execution of such works constituted a taxable sale within the meaning of Clause 51.0 of the Special Conditions of Contract (SCC). Petitioner had been regularly de- positing DVAT TDS @ 2%/4% on behalf of respondent under Section 36A of the DVAT Act, such deduction being permissible only on amounts paid or payable for the transfer of property in goods. Respondent never objected to such deductions and, on the contrary, claimed due credit thereof. Petitioner contends that it was not the end consumer of the works, as the project was being executed for ILBS (Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences), and that billing to ILBS was undertaken year by year and not upon completion of the entire work. Respondent, despite charging VAT from petitioner, failed to issue corresponding tax invoices despite repeated letters and requests, resulting in financial loss to petitioner by way of loss of Input Tax Credit (ITC).

12. Written submissions were also filed on behalf of respondent, wherein all allegations and averments of petitioner were denied. It is argued that Clause 23 of the SCC operates as a precondition to final acceptance of the plant and installation. The completion certificate is issued only upon petitioner's engineer being satis- fied with the works executed by respondent, confirming the handing over of the lifts. Only thereafter, respondent becomes entitled to raise tax invoices, signifying transfer of property in ARBTN 5488/2018 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page No.10 of 24 Patiala House Court, New Delhi goods as contemplated under the contract. It is further argued that respondent raised invoices only upon issuance of the com- pletion certificate, evidencing transfer of property under the works contract. However, petitioner, of its own accord, recorded purchases and raised bills to its customer (ILBS) even prior to completion of respondent's works. Such premature billing by pe- titioner cannot create any liability upon respondent. It is con- tended that any recovery or deduction on account of DVAT from R.A. Bills was impermissible, save and except for statutory TDS, which was duly effected from the 1st to 4th R.A. Bills. The con- tract contained no clause authorizing further withholding or re- covery of DVAT amounts. Respondent further submits that none of the grounds raised by petitioner fall within the scope of Sec- tion 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and that the impugned Award is a well-reasoned one, based on the con- tractual terms, correspondence, and applicable legal provisions. In support of these submissions, learned counsel for respondent relied upon the following authorities: -

3. For two lifts Tax Invoice which KONE check the provision has already been handed over for claiming VAT credit for which we are checking the time limit under DVAT provision under DVAT provision."

provision for availing VAT credit.

23. Petitioner has argued that this email was not signed by representative of petitioner and during admission/denial petitioner had denied this mail. The Arbitral Tribunal noted that petitioner herein had acknowledged receipt of afore-said email, but had denied the contents of the email. The Arbitral Tribunal went on to observe that the petitioner had liberty to deny the contents of the mail during currency of contract, but denial of the document during the arbitral proceedings was of little help to them. Thus, it was taken into consideration by the Tribunal. This court is not supposed to interfere on the basis of reasons for appreciation of a particular piece of evidence given by Tribunal. Furthermore, if this email was received by the petitioner herein, then in case of finding contents of the email to be factually incorrect, the natural course of reaction would have been to ARBTN 5488/2018 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page No.20 of 24 Patiala House Court, New Delhi revert back by sending a reply to such mail and making it clear that the given Minutes of Meeting were wrongly mentioned in the email of respondent. My attention was not taken to any such material, if produced before the Arbitral Tribunal. Therefore, reliance/consideration on afore-said email containing Minutes of Meeting purportedly held between representatives of both the sides, cannot be questioned. This Minute of Meeting goes on to show that petitioner wanted the respondent to issue invoice of Tax Credit with back date, but same was not accepted by the respondent. Just because respondent did not accept such demand of petitioner, it probably led petitioner to plea a new interpretation of contractual obligations and intentions of the parties, in order to claim that with 65% of the payment there was complete sale of the lifts and hence, respondent was duty bound to issue invoice of tax credit. However, the subsequent stand of petitioner was rightly rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal.