JUDGMENT (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) The Appeal arises from a judgment and order of a Learned Single Judge dated 19 November 2012 on a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The petition sought to challenge the award of a sole arbitrator dated 20 May 2011. 2. The Respondent had awarded a contract to the Appellant in connection with a project for the Flare System for a project called the Visakh Refinery Clean Fuel Project. The claim before the arbitral tribunal pertained to the service tax component. 3. Clause 1.1 of the contractual terms and conditions specified that the unit rates were inclusive of all taxes, duties, octroi, cess, levies etc. except for service tax. Moreover, Cenvatable Service Tax was to be extra which was to be reimbursed by the Respondent at actuals against the submission of documentary evidence in line with Clause 3.2.2 of the special conditions of contract. Details of the service tax furnished by the Appellant along with its offer were detailed in Form SP2 of the schedule of rates which is annexed to the letter of acceptance. The relevant condition was as follows: “1.1 TAXES, DUTIES AND CENVATABLE SERVICE TAX: The unit rates are inclusive of all taxes, duties, octroi, cess, levies etc., except service tax and shall remain firm and fixed till completion of all works in all respects and shall not be subjected to escalation on any account. However new taxes or duties, if levied after the date of submission of last price bid but before the contractual date of completion shall be reimbursed at actuals, against production of documentary evidence in line with clause no.3.2.1 of Special Conditions of Contract. Cenvatable Service Tax shall be extra which shall be reimbursed by HPCL at actuals against documentary evidence in line with clause no.3.2.2 of Special Conditions of Contract. Details of Service Tax furnished by you along with your offer is detailed in Form-SP2 of Schedule of Rates enclosed to this Letter of Acceptance.” Clause 3.2.2. of the special conditions inter alia provided as follows : “3.2.2 Service tax i) Unit rates/ Lumpsum prices in the Schedule of Rates shall be exclusive of Service Tax. Bidders shall quote CENVATABLE Service Tax in FORM-SP2 of the Price Schedule. of the special conditions inter alia provided as follows : “3.2.2 Service tax i) Unit rates/ Lumpsum prices in the Schedule of Rates shall be exclusive of Service Tax. Bidders shall quote CENVATABLE Service Tax in FORM-SP2 of the Price Schedule. ii) CENVATABLE Service Tax shall be reimbursed to the CONTRACTOR at actuals against submission of cenvatable documents for service tax as mentioned in following para and to the satisfaction of OWNER. In case Owner is not able to avail Cenvatable credit based on documentation furnished by the CONTRACTOR then such amount shall not be reimbursed. iii) …...... iv) CENVATABLE Service Tax given in the Price Part shall be subject to the statutory variation in service tax subsequent to submission of last price bid.” 4. Clause 2.2.4 required bidders to resolve all clarifications and queries and to submit their bids in total compliance with the bidding documents without deviations, stipulations or clarifications. Clause 5.4.1 provided that the bidder was responsible for the bid submitted and no relief or consideration could be given for the errors and omissions made inadvertently or advertently. 5. The Appellant submitted the details of its service tax in Form SP2. The details which the Appellant provided in Form SP2 were as follows: S.NO. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT IN RUPEES AMOUNT OF AMOUNT OF TAXABLE VALUE CENVATABLE OF SERVICES SERVICE TAX 1. Type of Services 7,51,79,175.00 25,30,531.00 (Twenty attracting Service (Seven Crore Fifty five lac Thirty thousand Tax : (Bidder to One Lac Seventy Five hundred Thirty identify) ALL Nine thousand One One only) WORKS/ACTIVITIES hundred Seventy AS PER FORM -SP3 five only) The Appellant computed the amount of the taxable value of services under the contract at Rs.7,51,79,175/- and the amount of Cenvatable Service Tax at Rs.25,30,531/-. The note appended specified that the owner shall reimburse service tax against the production of cenvatable documentary evidence. The contention of the Appellant before the arbitral tribunal was that the amount of Rs.25,30,531/-did not constitute a ceiling. The Appellant has by a letter dated 11 January 2006, which was after the acceptance of contract dated 26 November 2005 stated that there was a calculation mistake in specifying the Cenvatable Service Tax at Rs.25,30,531/-whereas it should be corrected to be Rs.76.68 lacs (calculated at 10.2% of the taxable value of service). The Appellant has by a letter dated 11 January 2006, which was after the acceptance of contract dated 26 November 2005 stated that there was a calculation mistake in specifying the Cenvatable Service Tax at Rs.25,30,531/-whereas it should be corrected to be Rs.76.68 lacs (calculated at 10.2% of the taxable value of service). The sole arbitrator noted in the award that in the original bid document the Appellant had quoted the Cenvatable Service Tax of Rs.25.30,531/-(which was 33% of 10.2% of the taxable service quoted of Rs.7.51 Crores). The award held that the condition of the contract that Cenvatable Service Tax will be paid on actuals had to be read in conjunction with the SP2 form; for, if the entirety of the service tax was to be reimbursed on actuals, then there was no reason to mention the amount in the bid. Hence, the arbitrator held that it was not open to the Appellant to unilaterally alter the purchase order and even assuming that the Appellant had committed a mistake, it was not entitled to claim in excess of what was stipulated in the contract. 6. The Learned Single Judge has dismissed the Arbitration Petition, holding that the view of the arbitrator was a possible interpretation of the terms of contract and that the Court under Section 34 would not hence be justified in taking a different view. 7. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that - (i) Under the terms of the contract, service tax was liable to be reimbursed at actuals against the submission of cenvatable documents; (ii) The amount of Rs.25.30 lacs stipulated in Form SP2 was only a guideline and not a ceiling; and (iii) Both the arbitrator as well as the Learned Single judge have failed to take adequate notice of the clarificatory emails dated 4 May 2006 and 5 May 2006. According to the Appellant, the arbitrator has not given any consideration to the clarifications issued by the Respondent. 8. According to the Appellant, the arbitrator has not given any consideration to the clarifications issued by the Respondent. 8. On the other hand, counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent supported the award and the reasoning of the Learned Single Judge and urged that - (i) The Appellant was entitled to be reimbursed on actuals subject to what was specified in Form SP2 having due regard to the provisions of Clause 1.1 of the purchase order and Clause 3.2.2 of the special conditions; (ii) The clarification by the Respondent on 5 May 2006 only reiterated the provisions of Clause 3.2.2; and (iii) The arbitrator having taken a possible interpretation of the terms of the contract, the Learned Single Judge was justified in declining to interfere on a petition under Section 34. 9. Clause 1.1. of the purchase order which provided that service tax shall be reimbursed at actuals specified that this would be against the submission of documentary evidence “in line with Clause 3.2.2” of the special conditions of contract. Clause 1.1 also specifically incorporated a reference to the details of service tax furnished by the Appellant along with its offer in Form SP2 of the schedule of rates enclosed to the letter of acceptance. In this background, sub-clause (i) of Clause 3.2.2 of the special conditions required bidders to quote the Cenvatable Service Tax in Form SP2 of the price schedule. The object of requiring the bidder to quote the service tax payable was obviously to indicate the extent of the liability, if any, of the Respondent as the owner. However, actual reimbursement was to be against the submission of cenvatable documents. The contention of the Appellant that the amount of Rs.25.30 lacs mentioned in Form SP2 was only a guideline and not a ceiling, cannot be accepted for the reason that if such a construction were to be adopted, then the specific reference to the details provided in Form SP2 both in Clause 1.1 of the purchase order and in Clause 3.2.2(i) of the special conditions would be rendered otiose. 10. The view which has been taken by the arbitrator is a possible view to take of the relevant provisions of the contract. Section 28(3) requires the arbitral tribunal to decide in accordance with the terms of the contract. The arbitrator has not ignored the relevant terms. 10. The view which has been taken by the arbitrator is a possible view to take of the relevant provisions of the contract. Section 28(3) requires the arbitral tribunal to decide in accordance with the terms of the contract. The arbitrator has not ignored the relevant terms. The award is based on an interpretation of the terms of the contract which cannot be said to suffer from any perversity. As regards the clarification dated 5 May 2006, the email of the Respondent in response to the clarification which was sought by the Appellant on 4 May 2006 makes a reference to Clause 3.2.2(ii) of the special conditions which is extracted in the email. The award has taken due note of the clarification in the course of the recording of submissions. In any event, nothing much would turn thereon because the email did not in any event constitute a deviation from the terms of the contract. For these reasons, we are of the view that the judgment of the Learned Single Judge dismissing the Petition under Section 34 does not suffer from any error. The Appeal shall accordingly stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.