oppn parties The Government Must Accept The Arbitration Award And Move On

News Snippets

  • Government to introduce PF for self-emplyed and gig workers
  • Crush at Puri Rathyatra leaves 2 dead and 78 injured
  • NEET-UG, marred in controversy due to pape4r leak, saw a huge increase in top scores as two scored 715/720 and 11.2 lkah candidates cleared the exam
  • India's first hydrogen-powered train will be flagged off by PM Modi from Jind in Haryana
  • Delhi HC asks the government to monitor Sona Wnagchuk's health regularly
  • TMC Rajya Sabha MP Koel Mallick resigns from her seat, leaves TMC. Mamata asks all those wishing to leave the party to do so before July 21
  • Calcutta HC says land deed is not a proof of citizenship. Refuses to provide protection to a man facing deportation on basis of land deed
  • Supreme Court tells the government to teach the third language in the 3-language formula in Class 6 and not Class 9
  • Government to take steps to boost liquidity for small businesses
  • RBI says that banks cannot sell seized assets back to the defaulters
  • Centre decides to take equity stakes in semiconductor startups
  • Markets remain flat on Thursday: Sensex closes just 1 point ahead and Nifty ended 5 point lower
  • BCCI:Selectors have possibly decided that Rohit Sharma will not be selected for ODIs after the Lord's game on Sunday
  • Japan Open badminton: P V Sindhu stuns world no. 5 Han Yue of China 21-16, 21-14 to enter the quarterfinals
  • 2nd ODI versus England: Indian batting fails miserably except Gill, Kohli and Iyer to score just 233 all out. England win by 4 wickets
Supreme Court clarifies that it has not issued a blanket ban on use of bulldozers, and they can be used after compliance with procedure laid down in civil laws
oppn parties
The Government Must Accept The Arbitration Award And Move On

By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2021-02-03 07:52:04

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack

The NDA government is very concerned about India's image abroad and wants to attract foreign capital investment under its Make in India initiative. For this, it needs to make India an attractive investment destination where, among other things, a stable and transparent tax regime is one of the main requirements.

Hence it is surprising that the government has decided to appeal against the arbitration tribunal's award in the Vodafone case. The same has been admitted in a court in Singapore. It is also examining the Cairn arbitration award. The government has taken the stand that an arbitration award cannot go against the law as it stands and no bilateral treaty can take away the taxation rights of a jurisdiction. The government feels that it is a question of interpretation and the case for an appeal was strong.

But the question in the Vodafone case was not of the law as it stood but a law that was changed with retrospective effect to bring the transactions under the tax net. It had amounted to changing the goal posts after the start of the match and was against the norms of a stable and transparent tax regime.

Since such changes in law go against ease of doing business and erode investor confidence, thereby making India a less attractive investment destination. With the thrust on Make in India and the government's efforts to make India the preferred investment destination for companies exiting China after the pandemic, the government should have accepted the arbitration award and moved on. That would have boosted India's image manifold.

But it seems that the same mentality which went into drafting the legislation with retrospective effect is once again at play. It is very unlikely that any court in the world would think of it as a matter of the law as it stood. When the Vodafone deal was inked, the law was different. It was changed precisely to tax the deal. Hence, most courts (as even the Supreme Court did in India) would give relief to the company against a law that was enacted after it completed the transaction.