ON Civil Appeal No 2506NT of 1988
From the Judgment and order dated 18 8 1982 of the Allahabad High Court in STR No 89 of 1982
SC Manchanda RS Rana and AK Srivastava for the Petitioner
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J
Notice was issued on this special leave application stating that the matter would be disposed of finally at the notice stage itself
None has appeared pursuant to the notice
We have considered the matter and heard Shri Manchanda counsel for the petitioner
Special leave is granted and the appeal is disposed of by the judgment herein
This appeal arises from the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad dated 18th August 1982
The said judgment was delivered on a revision application filed before the High Court
The application related to the assessment year 1977 78 under the UP Salex Tax Act
The first question involved before the High Court of Allahabad was whether the purchase of pulses effected by the assessee prior to 151977 could be subjected to tax under Section 302 of the Sales Tax Act
The Tribunal held that these could be so subjected
The High Court referred to the Notification No ST III 2712X 62 77 UP Act XV 48 order 77 and held that the contention of the 585 assessee could not be accepted that he had purchased the pulses in question before 1st May 1977
There was no dispute on this contention raised subsequently
The only contention that was urged before the High Court was that the Asstt
Commissioner Judicial was about granting relief to the assessee in respect of his turnover on pulses of Rs375500 to the extent of Rs319673 on the basis of certain evidences that had been produced before the assessing authority and the Asstt
Commissioner
The Tribunal was of the view that since the assessee had not furnished From IIl C1 he was not entitled to any exemption under Section 3 D of the Act
It appears that in the case of Abdul Ghani Banne Khan vs CST 1982 UPTC 665 a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad held that on the language of Section 3D7 b the assessee was entitled to lead evidence to the satisfaction of the assessing authority that the sale was made to a registered dealer and was not confined only to furnishing form IIIC2
There was however an earlier decision to the contrary in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs Kailash Trading Co 1981 UPTC 82 1 of the same Court which has been referred to in this case
In the judgment under appeal the High Court was of the view that as the Tribunal had not gone into the proof furnished by the assessee before the assessing authority and the AC J in support of his claim for exemption which according to the decision in Abdul Ghani Banne Khan supra should be examined by the Tribunal it remitted the matter to the Tribunal
In the premises the High Court allowed the revision and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal and directed it to consider the question whether the dealer was entitled to get any exemption on the basis of the evidence that he had furnished
According to the appellant the revenue here the High Court was wrong because in view of Section 3D7 b of the Act he was not entitled to lead any other evidence apart from submitting to the registered dealer Form No III C2
Clause b of sub section 7 of Section 3 D provides as follows Every sale within Uttar Pradesh by a dealer either directly through another whether on his own account or on account of any one else
shall for the purposes of subsection 2 be deemed to be a sale to a person other than a registered dealer unless the dealer selling the goods proves otherwise to the satisfaction of the assessing authority after having furnished such declaration or certificate obtained from the purchaser of such goods in such form and manner and within such period as may be prescribed
 586 Under the said Section declaration forms have been prescribed by Rule 12 B
It appears that this question stands concluded so far as the UP is concerned by a Bench decision of the said High Court in the case of Ms Govind Ram Tansukh Ram Tansukh Rai  Co Budaun vs Commissioner of Sales Tax UP 19851060
There after considering the aforesaid two decision of the learned Single Judges the Division Bench held that if the assesses had not furnished the required declaration forms in order to be entitled tor exemption the assessee could not file any other evidence which required to be considered by the taxing authorities
In that view of the matter the decision of the Division Bench must prevail
This also follows logically from the decision of this Court in Kedar Nath Jute Mfg Co Ltd vs Commercial Tax officer  Ors
16 STC 607 where this Court while dealing with similar provisions under the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act held that the dealer could claim exemption on the sales to the registered dealer by furnishing the declaration form and unless such declaration forms are furnished the dealer was not entitled to any exemption
This Court further reiterated that the provisions of this nature should be construed as mandatory
n that view of the matter there is no scope for taking any contrary view
In the premises the High Court in the impugned order was in error hi directing the Tribunal to consider the matter on other evidence
The assessee is entitled to exemption only on furnishing declaration forms
Since the assessee did not do so he was not entitled to exemption
The appeal is allowed and the decision of the High Court is set aside and the order of the Tribunal is restored
There will be no order as to costs
NVK Appeal allowed


Summary:
The construction of the Irrigation Project was entrusted to the respondent
As per the contract the work commenced on 4th May 1973 and was actually completed on 30th December 1975 the stipulated date being 4th November 1974
According to the appellant the respondent accepted the final payment and was duly paid a sum of Rs2374001 for the work done by him including the extra work
The last payment was alleged to have been made to the respondent in September 1976
A nil  bill was the last bill prepared
Thereafter the respondent raised a claim and gave notice for appointment of an arbitrator
One Nanda was appointed as the arbitrator by the Chief Engineer
But on an application made by the respondent the Subordinate Judge removed Nanda and appointed one Patnaik as the arbitrator
Again an application for removal of the arbitrator was made but was dismissed
The Respondent filed his claims before the arbitrator
These claims were for the alleged extra work in respect of which the decision of the Superintending Engineer under clause 11 of the contract was final and the same was excluded from the purview of the arbitration 563 clause
The appellant initially contended that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to deal with such claims but later filed a counter claim and denied all the claims of the respondent
While the application for removal of the arbitrator was pending an adjournment was sought for from the arbitrator and it was refused
After hearing the parties and considering the evidence produced the arbitrator made a non speaking and non reasoned award for Rs1523657 plus interest  10 in favour of the respondent
Objections to the award were filed in the Court
The Subordinate Judge upheld the objection and set aside the award
On appeal the High Court set aside the judgment of the Subordinate Judge and made the award rule of the Court and directed payment of future interest at 6
In this appeal by special leave against the High Court judgment the appellant State submitted that the award is without any reason
It also suggested that since the validity of the non reasoned award is being gone into by a larger Bench of this Court that decision should be awaited
Dismissing the appeal  HELD 11 The law as it stands today is that award without reasons is not bad per se
Indeed an award can be set aside only on the ground of misconduct or an error of law apparent on the face of the award
567F 12 In the instant case the plea that the award was bad being an unreasoned one was neither mooted before the learned Subordinate Judge nor before the High Court
It was also not raised in the objection to the award filed originally
It is only in the special leave petition that such a plea has been raised for the first time
Arbitration is restored to as a speedy method of adjudication of disputes
Stale and old adjudication should not be set at naught or examination of that question kept at bay on the plea that the point is pending determination by a larger Bench of this Court
Even if it is held ultimately that the unreasoned award per Se is bad it is not sure whether such a decision would upset all the awards in this country which have not been challenged so far
Certainly in the exercise of discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution and in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case it would not be justified in allowing the party to further prolong or upset adjudication of old and stale dispute
567C E 2
Clause 11 of the contract between the parties makes the deci 564 sion of the Engineer in Charge final in respect of some issues
Proviso of Clause 11 stipulates that in case of dispute about the rates and time for completion of the work and any dispute as to proportion that the additional work bears to the original contract work the decision of the Superintending Engineer of the Circle would be final
The points upon which the arbitrator in the instant case has adjudicated are not those which are excepted or covered by Clause 11 of the agreement
ID that view of the matter this clause has no application in the instant controversy
570B D Bombay Housing Board now the Maharashtra Housing Board vs Kharbase Naik  Co Sholapur   Chief Administrator Dandakaranya Project koraput Orissa  Anr
vs Ms Prabartak Comercial Corpn
Ltd Calcutta and Food Corporation of India
vs PL Juneja AIR 1981 Delhi 43 distinguished
State of orissa vs Gokulchandra Kanungo referred to
31 It is well settled that when the parties choose their own arbitrator to be the judge in the dispute between them they cannot when this award is good on the face of it object to the decision either upon law or on facts
Therefore when arbitrator commits a mistake either in law or in fact in determining the matters referred to him where such mistake does not appear on the face of the award and the documents appended to or incorporated so as to form part of it the award will neither be remitted nor set aside
571F G 32 The fact that merely the award amount is quite high or that a large amount has been awarded does not vitiate the award as such
If  there is any evidence of malady of racket of arbitration the Court may scrutinise the award carefully in each such case
572A B 33 It is clear from the facts of this case that the arbitrator is a highly qualified person having several Indian and foreign Degrees and at the relevant time was acting as Chief Engineer in Charge of the State Government
Having regard to the nature of claims involved and the fact that the additional work has been done for which large amounts have been paid in this case it is evident that all due opportunities were given to the parties to adduce all evidence
It cannot be said that the award was so disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the Court leading it to hold that the award was bad per Se
The High Court was 565 right in dismissing the challenge to the award on this ground
572C D Union of India vs Bungo Steel Furniture Pvt Ltd  and Allen Berry  Co P Ltd vs Union of India  relied on
State of Orissa  Ors
vs Gangaram Chhapolia  Anr referred to
41 It is now well settled that the interest pendente lite is not a matter within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator
572G H 42 In the instant case the order of the High Court is modified to the extent that the award is confirmed subject to the deletion of the interest pendente lite
It is made clear that interest for the period from 2691981 to 1831983 the date of the award is deleted
However the interest granted by the High Court from the date of the decree is sustained
573A B Executive Engineer Irrigation Balimella  Ors
vs Abhaduta Jena 1988 1 SCC 418 followed