Case Law Details

Case Name : Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt Limited Vs Secretary To Government Public Works (D) Department (Supreme Court of India)
Appeal Number : Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.22075/2022
Date of Judgement/Order : 04/09/2023
Related Assessment Year :

Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt Limited Vs Secretary To Government Public Works (D) Department (Supreme Court of India)

Introduction: In a recent case involving Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt Limited versus the Secretary to Government Public Works (D) Department, the Supreme Court of India has provided significant relief to Oriental Structural Engineers. The court upheld an arbitration tribunal’s award that allows the refund or deduction of overpaid tax. This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, including the background, the interpretation of the award, and the Supreme Court’s decision.

1. Background of the Case: Provide an overview of the dispute and the parties involved in the arbitration process. Explain the nature of the contractual or tax-related issues under consideration.

2. Interpretation of Dispute No. 18: Explain the specific dispute numbered as 18 in the award, which deals with the construction of sub-clause 70.8. Describe the arguments and contentions made by both parties regarding this dispute.

3. Arbitrator’s Award in Favor of the Appellant: Detail the decision made by the arbitrator, which favored Oriental Structural Engineers. Explain how the arbitrator’s interpretation of the law and tax-related matters led to this award.

4. Challenge and Overturning of the Award: Describe the subsequent challenge to the arbitration award, which resulted in its overturning. Highlight the arguments and reasons presented by the opposing party and the judicial authority responsible for overturning the award.

5. Plausible View and Section 34 of the Arbitration Act: Discuss the relevance of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in the context of the case. Explain how the Supreme Court considered the arbitrator’s decision as a plausible view and why it was upheld.

6. Taxation and Change in Law: Analyze the critical issue of taxation and the impact of a change in tax laws on Oriental Structural Engineers. Explain how this change led to the overpayment of taxes.

7. Supreme Court’s Verdict: Summarize the Supreme Court’s decision to set aside the impugned order, thereby upholding the arbitration award in favor of Oriental Structural Engineers. Explain the reasoning behind the court’s ruling.

8. Conclusion: Conclude the article by emphasizing the significance of the Supreme Court’s decision in providing relief to Oriental Structural Engineers. Highlight the broader implications for arbitration awards and the interpretation of contractual and tax-related disputes in India.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case reaffirms the importance of upholding plausible views taken by arbitrators and serves as a reminder of the value of arbitration in resolving complex disputes. It also underscores the impact of changes in tax laws on businesses and the need for fair and just resolutions in such matters.

FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER

Leave granted.

1. The only issue for consideration is on the interpretation of dispute no.18 of the award which deals with the construction of sub-clause 70.8.   On such construction, learned Arbitrator passed an award in favour of the appellant holding that in view of the subsequent change in law, the excess tax amount paid by it, is entitled to be returned or given to deduction. The said view being possible and plausible view received the imprimatur from the court in exercise of powers under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short, ‘Arbitration Act’). However, by the impugned order, it was overturned. We find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

2. The view expressed by the Tribunal is certainly a plausible view. In exercise of powers conferred under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, the said view cannot be replaced though another view is also possible.

3. Admittedly in the case on hand, the tax was reduced by the operation of law whereas the appellant has paid higher tax as was in existence earlier.

4. In such view of the matter, we are inclined to set aside the order impugned. The civil appeal stands allowed. No costs.

5. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Download Judgment/Order

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Telegram

taxguru on telegram GROUP LINK

Download our App

  

More Under Corporate Law

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

November 2023
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930