Builder solely liable for VAT charges per collaboration agreement. Owner not responsible post-construction.

The court held that the builder was solely responsible for VAT charges as outlined in the collaboration agreement. The owner's liability for taxes only arose post-completion of construction, not during. The suit under Order XXXVII CPC was dismissed as the owner was not liable for VAT charges per the agreement and Delhi VAT Rules. The builder's attempt to pass on VAT charges to the owner post-transaction was deemed in bad faith. The court emphasized the owner's non-liability for VAT charges based on the collaboration agreement's clear terms.

---

---

Issues:
1. Liability of the owner for VAT charges under a collaboration agreement.
2. Interpretation of clauses in the collaboration agreement regarding payment responsibilities.
3. Validity of the suit filed under Order XXXVII of the CPC.
4. Consideration of Delhi Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 in determining liability.
5. Analysis of the builder's conduct in raising VAT charges against the owner.

Analysis:

1. The collaboration agreement clearly outlined the responsibilities of the builder, including the entire construction costs and fees, as per clause 11. The builder's role was that of an owner acquiring rights in the property, not a service provider for the owner. The builder was solely responsible for all costs, including VAT charges, as per the agreement.

2. The clauses in the collaboration agreement, especially clause 11, emphasized that the builder bore all expenses for construction. The owner's liability for taxes and dues only arose after completion and handover of the building, not during the construction phase. The agreement did not intend for the owner to bear VAT charges related to construction.

3. The suit filed under Order XXXVII of the CPC was found to be not maintainable as the collaboration agreement clearly defined the payment responsibilities, and the VAT charges demanded from the owner were not justified. The court set aside the decree and order based on the lack of liability on the owner.

4. The owner's reliance on the Delhi Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 was considered, and it was concluded that the charges towards labor services and other expenses were excluded from taxable turnover as per Rule 3. Therefore, no liability could be imposed on the owner for VAT charges.

5. The builder's conduct in raising VAT charges after completing the transaction for the First Floor was deemed questionable. The invoice for VAT charges was seen as an afterthought, and the attempt to pass on the responsibility to the owner was not in good faith. The court dismissed the suit, emphasizing that the owner was not liable for the VAT charges as per the collaboration agreement.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, interpretations of clauses, legal considerations, and the court's findings regarding the owner's liability for VAT charges under the collaboration agreement.

---