ORDER : This petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996, challenging the impugned arbitral award dated 02.11.2023 passed in favour of the respondent against the petitioners. 2. The petitioners are the respondents and the respondent is the claimant in the arbitration. The petitioners used the sea food processing facility of the respondent for the purpose of pre-processing, processing, packing and storing all type of marine products and they entered into an agreement dated 05.02.2018 with the respondent. There arose disputes between the respondent and the petitioners with regard to payment of Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST). 3. Clause 12 of the agreement dated 05.02.2018 is the payment of GST clause. As per the said clause, the applicable GST charges has to paid by the petitioners (Exporter) to the respondent (Processor). According to the petitioners, in respect of clause 12 of the agreement, they are liable only to pay GST at 5% as per the invoices raised by the respondent. Whereas, according to the respondent, since they have received show cause notices from the GST Department under Section 74 of the CGST Act claiming that the rate of GST for processing of prawn is 18%, the petitioners are liable to make payment of differential GST and is also liable to pay interest under Section 50 of the CGST Act and penalty under Section 74 of the CGST Act. 4. Since the petitioners refused to pay GST at the rate of 18% as demanded by the respondent, subsequent to the raising of invoices under which the respondent had claimed only GST at 5%, the respondent initiated arbitration against the petitioners in accordance with the arbitration clause. 5. 4. Since the petitioners refused to pay GST at the rate of 18% as demanded by the respondent, subsequent to the raising of invoices under which the respondent had claimed only GST at 5%, the respondent initiated arbitration against the petitioners in accordance with the arbitration clause. 5. Before the arbitrator, the respondent made the following claims against the petitioners: a) To direct the first petitioner to furnish an indemnity bond undertaking to pay the difference in GST liabilities arising out of the following: a. Show cause notice dated 18.10.2019 for APGST; b. Show cause notice dated 18.10.2019 for CGST; c. Show cause notice dated 05.08.2021 for penalty and interest under APGST; d. Show cause notice dated 05.08.2021 for penalty and interest under CGST; and e. Show cause notice dated 08.12.2021 for APGST + CGST against the invoices raised by the respondent for the job work done for the first petitioner in the event of crystallization of the tax amount by the tax authority and the Honourable Courts; b) To direct the petitioners to return 13 Nos. original sale deeds of the respondent, which were given as security to the petitioners by the respondent; c) To direct the petitioners to support the respondent / claimant in any pending or future litigation / show cause notices relating to the transactions between them, initiated by the tax authorities by way of making pre-deposit and bearing litigation expenses including lawyers fee; d) Subject to the respondent undertaking to return the balance amount of security deposit of Rs.4 Crore after adjusting the tax pre- deposit for the GST appeals and advocate / tax consultant fee for the GST litigation fee and further payment if any, or such other amount as may be directed by the arbitral Tribunal. 6. Before the arbitrator, the first petitioner made a counter claim against the respondent, seeking for a direction to the respondent to pay the first petitioner a sum of Rs.3,18,03,894/- with further interest on INR 2,58,19,785/- at 12% from 01.12.2022 till the realisation as per the particulars of claim disclosed in Annexure-I to the counter claim. 7. 6. Before the arbitrator, the first petitioner made a counter claim against the respondent, seeking for a direction to the respondent to pay the first petitioner a sum of Rs.3,18,03,894/- with further interest on INR 2,58,19,785/- at 12% from 01.12.2022 till the realisation as per the particulars of claim disclosed in Annexure-I to the counter claim. 7. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the arbitrator framed the following issues: a) Whether clause 12 of the agreement dated 05.02.2018 mandates the first petitioner to incur GST liabilities for the job-work done by the respondent to the first petitioner?; b) Whether the first petitioner is liable to pay the differential in GST demand made by the GST authorities in the event of crystallisation of the liability?; c) Whether the first petitioner can deny its liability in respect of GST proceedings initiated by the GST authorities for the invoices raised by the respondent on the first petitioner?; d) Whether the first petitioner is entitled to retain the original sale deeds of the respondent after taking NOC from the IDBI Bank?; e) Whether the respondent can withhold the applicable security deposit of the first petitioner until the GST proceedings attain finality?; f) Is the first petitioner not liable to reimburse all costs incurred by the respondent in respect of the challenge to the GST demand laid by it for the benefit of the first petitioner?; g) Whether the present arbitration proceedings are invalid in view of the respondent having joined the second petitioner, who is admittedly not a party to the arbitration agreement; h) Whether the respondent has proved that they are entitled under the contract to seek indemnity from the first petitioner to bear the difference in the GST liability and cost of litigation arising out of the following: a. Show cause notice dated 18.10.2019 for APGST; b. Show cause notice dated 18.10.2019 for CGST; c. Show cause notice dated 05.08.2021 for penalty and interest under APGST; d. Show cause notice dated 05.08.2021 for penalty and interest under CGST; e. Show cause notice dated 08.12.2021 for APGST and CGST?; i) Whether the reliefs claimed in prayers (a), (b), (c) and (d) are beyond and outside the agreement dated 05.02.2018?; j) Whether the first petitioner is entitled to refund of security deposit of INR 3,18,03,894/- with further interest on INR 2,58,19,785/- at 12% from 01.12.2022 from the respondent in view of unconditional admission in letter dated 22.02.2021 and emails dated 23.09.2021 and 21.10.2021?; k) To what other reliefs are the parties entitled to? 8. Before the arbitrator, 58 documents were marked as exhibits on the side of the respondent viz., Ex.C1 to Ex.C58. On the side of the petitioners, 16 documents were filed, which were marked as Annexures. On the side of the respondent, two witnesses were examined viz., the respondent's Managing Director, Mr.K. Eravi Kumar as CW1 and Mr. T. Venkateshwara Rao, Tax Consultant as CW2. On the side of the petitioners, the first petitioner's Founder Director, Mr. Yogesh Grover, was examined as a witness viz., RW1. 9. Under the impugned arbitral award dated 02.11.2023, the arbitrator answered the issues framed by him in the following manner: a) Issue Nos.1, 2, 3, 6 and 8 referred to supra, which relates to GST liability, were answered in favour of the respondent by allowing the GST liability claim made by the respondent against the petitioners; b) Issue Nos.5 and 10, which relates to return of security deposit amount of Rs.4,00,00,000/- by the respondent, which is the counter claim made by the petitioners against the respondent, has been allowed partly, by holding that the petitioners are entitled to refund of security deposit of Rs.2,81,43,566/- as against a sum of Rs.3,18,03,849/- claimed by the petitioners against the respondent through their counter claim; c) Issue No.4, which relates to return of title deeds of the respondent by the petitioner, the arbitrator has directed the petitioners to return the title deeds to the respondent; d) Issue No.7, relates to declaration that the arbitral proceeding is invalid since the respondent has joined the second petitioner, who is admittedly not a party to the arbitral agreement. The arbitral Tribunal held that the arbitral claim made by the respondent against the petitioners is a valid arbitral proceeding; e) Issue No.9 relates to the relief claimed in prayers a, b, c and d. The arbitrator held that prayers a, b, c and d are not beyond the scope of the agreement; f) Issue No.11 is general in nature and therefore, the arbitrator did not consider the same. 10. Aggrieved by the arbitral award dated 02.11.2023, the respondents in the arbitration have filed this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996, challenging the impugned arbitral award. 11. Heard Mr.R. Murari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Pavan Kumar Gandhi for the petitioners and Mr. T. Mohan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. R. Anish Kumar for the respondent. 11. Heard Mr.R. Murari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Pavan Kumar Gandhi for the petitioners and Mr. T. Mohan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. R. Anish Kumar for the respondent. 12. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners, after drawing the attention of this Court to the agreement, which was the subject matter of dispute between the parties, as well as the impugned arbitral award, would submit as follows: a) The impugned arbitral award is contrary to the terms of the agreement. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, as per clause 12 of the agreement, the petitioners are only liable to pay GST at 5% as per the invoices raised by the respondent. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, since the respondent had raised invoices, claiming GST only at 5%, the petitioners as per the contract are not liable to make GST charges over and above the rate of GST mentioned in the invoices, which is 5%. According to him, the arbitrator under the impugned arbitral award has directed the petitioners to provide indemnity to the respondent at 18%, which would amount to virtually re- writing the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the parties and unilaterally arriving at an erroneous interpretation of clause 12, which is not permissible in law. According to him, clause 12 of the agreement cannot be extended or interpreted to mean that the first petitioner would be liable to indemnify the respondent against any demand made by the tax authorities for alleged violations of the provisions of CGST Act by the service provider i.e., the respondent; b) It is relevant to point out that even subsequent to the issuance of show cause notice from the GST Department, the respondent failed to communicate the same to the first petitioner as the respondent was always aware that the respondent would be solely liable for any proceedings initiated under the CGST Act. Assuming without admitting that the applicable rate of GST is 18% instead of 5%, there was no embargo on the respondent to pay the differential GST and recover the same from the first petitioner thereafter; c) The petitioners were not even aware of the issuance of the show cause notices and consequently, did not have any knowledge that the same has been challenged by the respondent. Further, the respondent themselves have believed that the show cause notice is bad in law and therefore, although the same was issued to him on 18.10.2019, it was informed / forwarded to the petitioners for the first time only on 11.02.2020. It is relevant to point out that it was only after the GST authorities passed an order dated 06.02.2020, the respondent informed the petitioners about the show cause notice. The respondent's contention that they challenged the show cause notice at the instance of the petitioners and / or with their concurrence is totally false, misleading and a figment of their imagination; d) Further, the contention that the petitioner suggested the respondent to charge GST at 5% is belied by evidence of the respondent's own witness, who has during his cross examination, has admitted that it was infact the respondent, who determined the applicable GST and raised invoices. According to the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, any liability that arises therefrom, would have to be levied only upon the respondent; e) Without prejudice to the aforesaid, it is on record that the petitioners were at all time ready and willing to pay GST at 18%, had the respondent raised invoices at 18% GST. The petitioners could not have paid GST at 18%, as the invoices had charged GST at 5% and the petitioners can only pay the amounts reflected in the invoices. Further, the respondent at no point of time raised invoices at 18% GST. Pertinently, even after issuance of the show cause notices from the GST department, the respondent voluntarily revised the GST charges in the invoices to 5% ; f) Further, as a registered person under the CGST Act, the respondent is solely responsible for furnishing returns with the correct rate of tax and such statutory obligation cannot be foisted on the petitioners under the terms of agreement, when there is no such obligation under the agreement. Therefore, the respondent would be solely responsible for any violation of provisions of the CGST Act / APGST Act and any claims made by the tax authorities under the show cause notices. Therefore, the respondent would be solely responsible for any violation of provisions of the CGST Act / APGST Act and any claims made by the tax authorities under the show cause notices. Therefore, the interpretation given in the impugned award to clause 12 is wholly untenable and it goes into the root of the matter; g) Apart from directing the petitioners to provide indemnity for the GST amount at 18%, the arbitrator has gone beyond the scope of the contract by extending clause 12, which pertains to payment of GST, to include interest, penalty and legal costs. In terms of clause 12 of the agreement, only the applicable GST charges are to be payable by the petitioners to the respondent. Therefore, the question of extending the said clause to payment of interest, penalty and legal costs, is clearly contrary to the agreement and the substantive provisions of law, including the CGST Act, 2017. In terms of clause 5 of the agreement, the respondent will take the full and exclusive liability and responsibility for fulfilment of all obligations as per the law prescribed under a state or any government authority. Therefore, in view of clause 5 of the agreement, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the interest and penalty imposed on the respondent for violation of provisions of the CGST Act would only be to the account of the respondent and the same cannot be passed on to the petitioners as there is a specific bar under the agreement. However the impugned award has wholly failed to advert to or give effect to clause 5 of the agreement. Thus, when clause 12 is read with clause 5, the petitioners can at the most be made liable only for the differential GST liability and not the interest, penalty and legal costs; h) Since the issues concerning GST liability, interest, penalty and legal costs have been dealt with jointly under paragraph 2(a) of the impugned Arbitral Award, the impugned Arbitral Award in respect of the indemnity bond is not severable. Therefore, the whole of the impugned award, in respect of the whole indemnity bond, by the petitioners to the respondent has to be set aside, as this Court does not have jurisdiction for modifying the award; i) It is settled law that principles of equity would be inapplicable in an arbitration, unless otherwise agreed between the parties. Therefore, the whole of the impugned award, in respect of the whole indemnity bond, by the petitioners to the respondent has to be set aside, as this Court does not have jurisdiction for modifying the award; i) It is settled law that principles of equity would be inapplicable in an arbitration, unless otherwise agreed between the parties. The arbitrator is bound to render an award consistent with the clauses of the contract. Hence, the arbitrator, by awarding indemnity bond for penalty, interest and legal costs to the respondent, has erroneously applied principles of equity, which is impermissible under the agreement between the parties; j) With respect to delayed refund of security deposit, the respondent has agreed to pay interest at 12% per annum from 10.03.2021. However, under the impugned arbitral award, the arbitrator has ignored the same. In terms of clause 4 of the agreement, the respondent is liable to return the security deposit to the petitioner without interest, within a maximum period of 4 months from the date of termination of the agreement, failing which, the respondent will be liable to pay interest at 18% per annum. The agreement was terminated by the petitioners on 11.10.2020 and therefore, the respondent was liable to return the security deposit without any interest within a period of 4 months therefrom. However, the respondent failed to return the security deposit within the time stipulated as agreed under the agreement. Though interest at 18% was payable under the agreement, in view of the respondent's undertaking to pay interest from 10.03.2021, the petitioners had agreed to receive interest at 12%; k) The respondent agreed to make payment of interest at 12% per annum on the security deposit from 10.03.2021, which is evident from the following: a. The respondent's email dated 17.08.2021; b. The respondent's email dated 25.09.2021; c. The respondent's email dated 11.10.2021. However, the arbitrator has ignored the above emails and has not awarded any interest on the security deposit amount retained by the respondent under the impugned arbitral award. 13. The respondent has contended that the arbitrator has given a plausible reason for the award of interest for the period from 01.03.2022 and the same does not require interference in view of section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996. 13. The respondent has contended that the arbitrator has given a plausible reason for the award of interest for the period from 01.03.2022 and the same does not require interference in view of section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, the said contention is erroneous for the following reasons: a. Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act refers to post award interest, when the same is not provided in the arbitral award. However, in the present facts, the petitioner is concerned with the award of interest on the security deposit from 10.03.2021, which even prior to the commencement of arbitration proceedings, the respondent has agreed to pay interest on such security deposit from 10.03.2021. Therefore, Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 is not applicable to the facts of the present case; b. What is relevant to the facts of the present case is Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996, which provides that 'unless otherwise agreed', the arbitrator may award such rate as it deems reasonable. In the present case, the respondent has agreed to pay interest for delayed return of security deposit at 18 % per annum after four months of termination and subsequently, agreed to pay interest at 12% from 10.03.2021 and therefore, in terms of Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996, the arbitrator ought to have awarded interest at 12 % per annum from 10.03.2021. 14. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, in support of his contentions, drew the attention of this Court to the following authorities: a. The decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Project Director, NHAI Vs. M. Hakeem reported in 2021 (9) SCC 1 b. The decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Associate Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority reported in 2015 (3) SCC 49 ; c. The decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Mcdermott International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and Others reported in 2006 (11) SCC 181 ; d. The decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority reported in 2015 (3) SCC 49 ; c. The decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Mcdermott International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and Others reported in 2006 (11) SCC 181 ; d. The decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. National Highways Authority of India reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 677 ; e. The decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ramkishan Singh Vs. Rocks Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2017 SCC Online Del 6471 f. The decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. Vs. Eastern Engg. Enterprises reported in 1999 (9) SCC 283 (SC) . 15. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent would submit as follows: a) Interest, penalty and legal costs are consequential claims on account of non-payment of the differential GST amount by the petitioners. Further, before the arbitral Tribunal, the petitioners never disputed the claim for payment of interest and penalty made by the respondent. For the first time before this Court, the petitioners have raised the contention that the respondent cannot claim penalty and interest since the contract does not provide for the same; b) Being liable to pay GST to the GST Department, the respondent is under obligation to defend the tax demand. Hence, replied to the show cause notices, raising objection for the difference in the tax demand. This should not dilute the case of the respondent; c) The arbitral Tribunal has held that the petitioners have to pay the difference in GST and its consequential demand in the event of crystallization, which finding has not been challenged instead pleaded by the petitioners in grounds E, F, H and K of this petition, claiming that the relief sought for by the respondent before the arbitrator, is beyond the scope of the agreement. The petitioners' witness has admitted that he was made aware of the demand of GST authorities within a year when the processing of the prawns started. There are several contradictions in the statement made by the petitioners' witness during his cross-examination; d) The petitioners' witness has admitted that the other processors in Andhra Pradesh were charging GST at 18%. The petitioners' witness has admitted that he was made aware of the demand of GST authorities within a year when the processing of the prawns started. There are several contradictions in the statement made by the petitioners' witness during his cross-examination; d) The petitioners' witness has admitted that the other processors in Andhra Pradesh were charging GST at 18%. Therefore, the petitioners knew fully well that they are liable to pay GST at 18% and only by mistake, the respondent, in their invoices raised on the petitioners, has claimed only 5%. The petitioners cannot pay two different rates of tax for different processors in terms of the very same process; e) The arbitrator, under the impugned arbitral award, while interpreting the contract, had applied his mind, discussed the issues in detail and gave a reasonable, meaningful, appropriate and effective interpretation, by holding that the petitioners are liable to pay the differential GST amount, in case the challenge made by the respondent to the same becomes unsuccessful; f) The view taken by the arbitrator under the impugned arbitral award is a plausible view and therefore, the question of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not arise; g) Having undertaken to pay the applicable GST amount, the petitioners cannot go back on the said undertaking. Under the contract, the respondent never agreed that the petitioners are liable to pay only 5% GST amount. Admittedly, when the GST amount applicable is 18%, necessarily, the petitioners will have to pay GST only at 18%; h) Interest, penalty and legal costs are consequential on account of non payment of differential GST amount by the petitioners. Having not paid the applicable GST amount, the petitioners are liable to pay interest, penalty and legal costs to the respondent; i) The arbitral Tribunal has granted 12% interest as prayed for by the petitioners for a period of 9 months on the net payment of Rs.2,58,19,785/- arrived at by the petitioners as on 28.02.2022 till November 2022, which is 9 months against the claim of 21 months made by the petitioners in their counter claim for the period from March 2021 till November, 2022. But, the arbitral Tribunal has granted further interest to the petitioners at 12% from December 2022 till the date of realization if the respondent did not pay within 6 weeks. But, the arbitral Tribunal has granted further interest to the petitioners at 12% from December 2022 till the date of realization if the respondent did not pay within 6 weeks. The respondent has not agreed for interest in the event of failure to bear the GST liabilities by the petitioners. Thus, the award of interest is the discretion of the arbitral Tribunal; j) The arbitrator has only directed the petitioners to give indemnity bond in favour of the respondent for the GST liabilities, which is a plausible view; k) None of the grounds for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 are satisfied by the petitioners for the purpose of setting aside the Arbitral Award. 16. Discussion: The adjudication of the dispute between the parties depends upon the interpretation of clause 12 of the agreement dated 05.02.2018, which is the subject matter of dispute between the parties and the same is reproduced hereunder: " 12. The applicable GST Charges to be paid by the exporter to the processor". 17. The exporter is the first petitioner and the processor is the respondent. Admittedly, the rate of GST payable by the petitioners to the respondent is not mentioned in clause 12. As seen from clause 12, the applicable GST charges has to be paid by the petitioners to the respondent. Admittedly, the petitioners are regular exporters. It is also an admitted fact that there are other processors engaged by the petitioners apart from the respondent. 18. During the cross-examination of the petitioners' witness, he has also admitted that other processors have demanded 18% GST amount and the same was also paid by the petitioners. The arbitrator, in his interpretation of clause 12 of the agreement, has given a finding while discussing the issue Nos.1, 2, 3, 6 and 8, which relates to GST liability, that the language of the clause 12 is clear, plain, categorical and unambiguous. He has also relied upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd., vs. Dewan Chand Ram Saran reported in 2012 (26) S.T.R. 289 (S.C.) for coming to the conclusion that when one party undertakes to bear the tax liability, the said party would alone bear the tax liability since it is a contractual obligation. The arbitrator has held that clause 12 of the agreement clearly fixes the liability on the petitioners and the petitioners cannot escape the liability by raising technical objections. The arbitrator held that he need not go into the fact as to whether the respondent informed the proceedings of the GST to the petitioner or not. The arbitrator, therefore, held that when admittedly the applicable GST amount is 18%, the petitioners are liable to pay 18% to the respondent. 19. Before this Court, the petitioners have raised a ground that they are not liable to pay interest, penalty and legal fees. The arbitrator has directed the petitioners to provide indemnity to the respondent for interest, penalty and legal fees as well. Interest, penalty and legal costs are consequential to the non payment of the differential GST amount of 13% by the petitioners to the respondent. GST statutes makes it clear that the GST amount if not paid on time, interest and penalty amounts become automatically due and payable. The respondent has challenged the levy of the differential GST amount as well as the interest and penalty, by exercising their statutory rights available under the GST statutes. They have given interpretation that they are liable to pay GST only at the rate of 5% for the subject transaction. Presently, their challenge is pending on the file of High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the High Court has also granted interim stay of levy of the differential GST amount demanded by the GST authorities but, whether they succeed in their challenge or not, no one can predict. Having undertaken to pay the applicable GST amount under clause 12 of the contract, the petitioners are liable to indemnify the respondent, in case the respondent fails in their challenge with regard to the demand of differential GST amount by the GST authorities. Though the respondent is liable to the GST department, in case their challenge to the differential GST amount demanded by the GST department fails, ultimately, the petitioners have to pay the respondent the said differential GST amount as they have unconditionally agreed to pay the same to the respondent as per clause 12 of the agreement, which stipulates that the petitioners have to pay the applicable GST amount to the respondent. 20. 20. Even, before this Court, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, during his submissions, did not raise serious objection with regard to the payment of the differential GST amount by the petitioners to the respondent. But, his main bone of contention was that the petitioners are not liable to pay interest, penalty and legal fees and he would submit that by holding that those amounts are payable, the arbitrator has gone beyond the scope of the agreement as the agreement does not stipulate that the petitioners are liable to pay interest, penalty and legal fees. However the said argument does not hold water due to the fact that interest, penalty and legal fees are consequential due to the non-payment of the differential GST amount by the petitioners. 21. It is also seen from the cross-examination of the petitioners' witness that the petitioners have employed other processors as well during the very same time and he has also admitted that other processors have claimed only 18% GST amount and the same was also paid by the petitioners in accordance with their invoices. The petitioners are regular exporters. Being regular exporters, the petitioners must be knowing the applicable GST payable at the relevant point of time. Ignorance of law is no excuse. Admittedly, at the relevant point of time, the GST payable was 18%. But the petitioners have paid only 5% GST amount based on the invoices raised by the respondent, erroneously claiming only 5% GST amount from the petitioners. Within a year after the GST department made a claim against the respondent for payment of differential GST amount, penalty and interest, the respondent has informed the petitioners about the same. 22. To protect the interest of the respondent, pending payment to be made by the petitioners, the respondent has also challenged before the appropriate authorities by following the due procedure established under law. Admittedly, the respondent has also paid the pre-deposit amount for preferring the statutory appeal and has also made payment for obtaining conditional stay, pursuant to orders passed by the appropriate authority / High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Admittedly, when compared to the petitioners, the respondent is a small player and they have only done job- work on behalf of the petitioners, which has resulted in the claim for demand of differential GST amount of 13%, interest and penalty from the respondent. Admittedly, when compared to the petitioners, the respondent is a small player and they have only done job- work on behalf of the petitioners, which has resulted in the claim for demand of differential GST amount of 13%, interest and penalty from the respondent. Having agreed to pay the applicable GST amount to the respondent and having failed to pay the GST amount as per the demand of the GST department, the arbitral Tribunal was right in directing the petitioners to indemnify the respondent, in case their challenge for the demand of the differential GST amount for the subject transaction fails. The view taken by the arbitrator, that the petitioners will have to indemnify the respondent towards claim for differential GST amount, interest, penalty and legal costs, is totally justified and is only in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 05.02.2018. 23. As observed earlier, the claim for payment of interest and penalty is only in accordance with the GST statutes. This Court does not find any infirmity in the findings of the arbitrator that the petitioners have to indemnify the respondent with regard to the claim of the GST Department for interest and penalty. According to the GST department, since the differential GST amount has not been paid, the respondent is liable to pay interest and penalty as per the statutory provisions of the respective GST enactments. The respective GST enactments empowers the GST Department to claim interest and penalty, in case the GST amount is not paid on time. Though the respondent has challenged the claim of the GST Department, they cannot be left high and dry, in case, they fail in their attempt to quash the demand made by the GST Department for the payment of interest and penalty in respect of the contract entered into by the respondent with the petitioners. Interest and the penalty, being consequential payments, the arbitrator was justified in directing the petitioners to provide indemnity to the respondent for those amounts as well. 24. Certainly, legal costs would have been incurred by the respondent for challenging the GST demand of differential taxes. The direction to the petitioners to provide indemnity for legal costs incurred by the respondent is also not improper. 25. 24. Certainly, legal costs would have been incurred by the respondent for challenging the GST demand of differential taxes. The direction to the petitioners to provide indemnity for legal costs incurred by the respondent is also not improper. 25. The arbitrator has granted 12% interest as prayed for by the petitioners in their counter claim for the period of nine months on the net payment of Rs.2,58,19,785/- arrived at by the petitioners as on 28.02.2022 till November 2022, which is 9 months against the claim of 21 months made by the petitioners in their counter claim for the period from March 2021 till November, 2022 (being the date of filing of counter claim by the petitioners). The Tribunal has also granted further interest at 12 % from December 2022 till realization, if the respondent has not paid the interest amount within a period of six weeks. The award of interest is the discretion of the arbitrator. 26. The decisions relied upon by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in Ramkishan Singh Vs. Rocks Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2017 SCC Online Del 6471 has no bearing for the facts of the instant case. In that case, the arbitrator went beyond the scope of the agreement. However, in the instant case, it is not so, as the arbitrator has rightly interpreted clause 12 of the agreement, by holding that the petitioners are liable to pay the applicable GST charges, penalty, interest and legal charges to the respondent and since the differential GST amount has not been paid, the petitioners have to indemnify the respondent, in case the respondent fails in his attempt to challenge the demand of differential GST amount, interest and penalty. 27. Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides a limited scope for judicial interference with arbitral awards. Court can set aside an award only on specific ground such as patent illegality or it violates public policy. The award must be demonstrably illegal on its face, such as being contrary to a fundamental provisions of law or the terms of the contract. The award must be in violation of the fundamental policy of the Indian law or against justice and immorality and this includes situations were the award is induced by fraud or corruption. The award must be demonstrably illegal on its face, such as being contrary to a fundamental provisions of law or the terms of the contract. The award must be in violation of the fundamental policy of the Indian law or against justice and immorality and this includes situations were the award is induced by fraud or corruption. Section 34 also allows for interference if the arbitral award is in violation of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 or the arbitration agreement. The Court reviewing the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 is not an appellate body. It cannot re-appreciate the evidence. The Court's limited role is only to ensure that arbitral award is not fundamentally flawed or perverse. 28. In the impugned arbitral award, the arbitrator has only directed the petitioners to give indemnity bond in favour of the respondent. The law, as on date, is also well settled, as this Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot modify an arbitral award. The reasons given by the arbitrator, for arriving at the conclusion in his arbitral award, are justifiable reasons. The view taken by the arbitrator is also a legal and plausible view. Therefore, there is no scope for interference by this Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996, as the arbitrator has passed the award only based on the evidence available on record and in accordance with the law. Only in accordance with the ratio laid down by various decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court, which includes the decisions relied upon by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have not satisfied any of the grounds available under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 for challenging the award. The impugned arbitral award does not suffer from any perversity or patent illegality. 29. In the result, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No Costs.