Short Note : 1. The revision application was directed against the order dated 29th August 1970 whereby the learned Second Additional District Judge, Gwalior, rejected the petitioner's application under section 16 of the Arbitration Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the learned Additional District Judge committed an illegality in exercise of his jurisdiction in not remitting the award in respect of the amount of Rs. 8,893.29/- claimed by the petitioner on account of goods-tax, paid by him under the M.P. Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Goods) Act, 1962. Held: The proposition propounded by the learned counsel that an award is liable to be set aside if there is an error of law apparent on face of the award is correct, and has not been controverted by the learned Government Advocate appearing on the opposite side. Union of India v. Bungo Steel Furniture Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1967 SC 1032 , Dr. S. Dutt v. University of Delhi, AIR 1958 SC 1050 relied on. 2. The only question, therefore, is whether the award in the present case suffers from any such infirmity. Section 4 (3) proviso of the M. P. Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Goods) Act, 1962, lays down that the tax levied under this section may be collected by the owner along with the freight charged. It is, however, conceded that there was no condition in the agreement between the parties that the goods-tax in question would be paid by the Union of India, Thus the Arbitrator rightly observed in his award that the petitioner is not entitled to be reimbursed for the goods-tax in question paid by him, either under any agreement between the parties or by virtue of any statutory provision. All that section 4 (3) proviso lays down is that the owner of the vehicle is bound to pay the goods-tax though it may be open to him to collect the same along with the freight charged. There is no escape from the conclusion that there is no statutory provision entitling the petitioner to recover the tax in question from the opposite party. This Court is thus clearly of the opinion that there is no apparent error of Jaw in the award made by the arbitrator is discernable. In this view of the matter, no interference can be made with the impugned order. This Court is thus clearly of the opinion that there is no apparent error of Jaw in the award made by the arbitrator is discernable. In this view of the matter, no interference can be made with the impugned order. M. P. Transport Co., Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M.P. 1962 JLJ 214, Jaykumar and others v. Prakash, 1970 JLJ 592 referred to. Revision dismissed.