DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. BRAHMAPUTRA INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition challenges the impugned order dated 2nd May, 2018 by which the Respondent's/Plaintiff's (hereinafter, "Plaintiff") application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been allowed by the ld. Trial Court and the amended plaint has been taken on record.

(2.) The brief background is that the contractor i.e. the Plaintiff was awarded a construction contract by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter, "DDA") for some outstanding work in the Commonwealth Games. Disputes arose between the parties as to whether the DDA would be liable to reimburse service tax deposited by the Plaintiff with the Government. The case of the DDA is that service tax liability is purely of the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff alleges otherwise. Since the DDA refused to pay the component of service tax to the Plaintiff, a suit for recovery came to be filed seeking recovery of the service tax component.

(3.) Thereafter, during the pendency of the suit, the Plaintiff realised that some part of the service tax component was also the CENVAT credit, which were amounts paid by the contractor to suppliers of inputs services to them. The same was contained in a computation chart which was annexed with the plaint. However, due to an inadvertent error, the said amount was not included in the amount claimed in the prayer. Accordingly, an application was filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to claim the CENVAT credit amount. The DDA resisted the application. However, the ld. Trial Court allowed it subject to the payment of Rs.3,000/- as costs.