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

News Snippets

  • 76-year-old retired doctor dies in Hyderabad after being held to digital 'arrest'
  • Paksitan admits that India had rejected thrid-party role in ending the conflict following the Pahalgam terror attack
  • Supreme Court seeks reply from the states about anti-conversion laws
  • Calcutta HC rules that a man cannot deny maintaenance to his wife just because she is earning
  • Stocks rebound on Tuesday: Sensex gains 594 points to 82380 and Nifty gains 169 points to 25239
  • China Masters badminton: PV Sindhu reaches second round but Ayush Shetty knocked out
  • World Wrestling Championships: Male wresters draw a blank and wone continue to struggle, showing that India is losing out in a sport where it once excelled
  • Speed Skating World Championships: Anandkumar Velkumar becomes the first Indian to win gold in 100m inline sprint. This comes after his bronze in the 500m event
  • BCCI ropes in Apollo Tyres as new jersey sponsor after Dream 11 had to bow out due to the ban on online gaming companies, to get Rs 200cr more
  • World Athletics: High jumper Sarvesh Anil Kushare finishes an impressive sixth
  • A study has found that the Red Fort in Delhi is turning black due to air pollution
  • PM Modi asks defence ministry to achieve greater integration among armed forces
  • Supreme Court refuses to stay the entire Waqf Act but stays some provisions it finds bad in law
  • Supreme Court closes Vantara zoo case in Jamnagar after the SIT clears the body tasked with maintaining it. Says it will entertain no further complaints in the matter
  • Supreme Court says bringing political parties under POSH Act will liekly become a tool for blackmail
Sebi dismisses Hindenberg's claim against Adani group companies ////// Neeraj Chopra finishes 8th at World Athletics
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.

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.