VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J

1. By this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the petitioner challenges the Award dated 9.8.2002 passed by the Sole Arbitrator. The only issue which has been decided by the impugned Award is with regard to the claim of the respondent herein (and who was the claimant in the arbitration proceedings) for reimbursement of the sales tax amounts which were illegally recovered by the petitioner herein from the bills of the claimant/respondent.

2. To appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to refer to certain Clauses of the Contract and which are Clauses 47, 50.5 and 50.6. These clauses read as under:

“Clause 47 The bid price shall include complete cost of all materials, equipments, labour, handling, transportation, transit insurance etc. required for the completion of works. The prices shall also be inclusive of any or all taxes, duties and levies etc. as provided in clause 50.3 and 50.5(a).

However, the prices shall be exclusive of the excise duty, levies, taxes etc. leviable on the various items manufactured/fabricated at contractor’s works for further erection at Project, duties and levies shall be reimbursed by the Corporation to the Contractor as per actual on production of proof of payment to the satisfaction of Engineer-in-Charge. The bidder shall however, indicate the amount of excise duty leviable, if any, item-wise considering the present rate of excise duty.”

“Clause 50.5 TAXES, DUTIES AND LEVIES ETC.

a) All existing sales tax or any other tax or duty or levy, such as Octroi, Dharat, Royalty, Excise Terminal Tax etc. on all consumables and materials, including, Petrol, Oil and Lubricants (and increase, if any, on these during the currency of the contract) that the contractor has to purchase for the performance of the contract, be payable by the contractor and the Corporation will not entertain any claim for compensation whatsoever, in this regard. The rates quoted by the contractor shall be deemed to be inclusive of all such taxes, duties, levies etc. and any increase thereon.

b) However, if a New Tax or Duty or Levy(other than that existing on the date of opening of the tender) is imposed under a statute or law during the currency of the contract and the contractor becomes liable to and actually pays the same for obtaining consumables and materials required for bona-fide use on the works contracted, then the contractor shall immediately inform the Engineer-in-Charge in this regard. The Corporation will reimburse the same to the contractor on production of satisfactory proof of payment, provided that the amount thus claimed is not paid under Price Variation Clause in the contract.”

“Clause 50.6 Central or State Sales Tax on completed work, if payable and paid by the Contractor, shall be reimbursed by the Corporation on the production of satisfactory proof of payment.”

(Emphasis added)

3. The Arbitrator has, essentially relying upon Clause 50.6, held that the liability of Sales Tax is to the account of the petitioner and not the respondent. For the reasons given hereinafter in my opinion, no fault can be found with the Award in this regard. In addition to the reasoning given by the Arbitrator, in my opinion, that once there is a specific clause which directly deals with reimbursement of sales tax, then other general clauses cannot denude the effect of such a specific clause providing for reimbursement of the sales tax. I may note that in the Award there is a reference to an Award of Justice Avadh Behari Rohatgi (Retd.), passed in respect to the disputes between the same parties, involving more or less the same issues, the only difference being that, in the arbitration proceedings before Justice Avadh Behari Rohatgi (Retd.) the issue pertained to Central Sales Tax, whereas the present case pertains to State Sales Tax. The counsel for the respondent on instructions from Mr. P.C. Gupta, Chief Manager (commercial) states that the petitione