https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386061 An amendment to a plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was permissible where it merely corrected an inadvertent omission in the quantification of an already pleaded claim, including the omitted CENVAT credit component. Because the plaint and chart had already disclosed the underlying service tax claim and the related adjustment, the amendment did not introduce a new cause of action or change the nature of the suit. The limitation objection was not decisive at the amendment stage, as it depended on factual proof to be examined at trial. The bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC also did not apply to correction of a computational omission in an existing claim. en-us Mon, 16 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Sep 2019 07:25:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386061 An amendment to a plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was permissible where it merely corrected an inadvertent omission in the quantification of an already pleaded claim, including the omitted CENVAT credit component. Because the plaint and chart had already disclosed the underlying service tax claim and the related adjustment, the amendment did not introduce a new cause of action or change the nature of the suit. The limitation objection was not decisive at the amendment stage, as it depended on factual proof to be examined at trial. The bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC also did not apply to correction of a computational omission in an existing claim. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 16 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386061