STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LMITED vs LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD.

Judgment text excerpt

$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision : 23.03.2026 + O.M.P. (COMM) 471/2024 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shaiwal Srivastava & Ms. Ghanishtha Mishra, Advs. versus LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. ER Kumar, Mr. Sameer Parekh, Ms. Swati Bhardwaj & Ms. Aditi, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR % JUDGEMENT (ORAL) HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. 1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961, laying a limited challenge to the Arbitral Award dated 30.06.20232, insofar as it pertains to the issue of CENVAT/input tax credit. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the impugned Award is liable to be set aside as the learned Majority Arbitral Tribunal has returned erroneous findings of fact. It is contended that the documents furnished by the Respondent were 1 Act 2 Impugned Award Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed O.M.P. (COMM) 471/2024 Page 1 of 13 By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:25.03.2026 19:01:37 insufficient and did not enable the Petitioner to avail the input tax credit. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that the central issue before the learned Arbitral Tribunal, as also before this Court, is whether the Petitioner had taken any steps whatsoever to avail the input tax credit. It is submitted that all requisite documents were duly furnished to the Petitioner and that there was no deficiency on the part of the Respondent. 4. It is further submitted that the Petitioner, on the basis of the documents so furnished, had reimbursed the Respondent towards the amounts paid on account of CENVAT and VAT, which itself demonstrates that the Petitioner had