TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 197
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y bearing no. D-49 situated at Greater Kailash, Enclave-II, New Delhi measuring 408.33 sq. yds (hereinafter, 'suit property').. 2. The relevant clauses of the Collaboration agreement are set out herein below: "1............ 2. That the Builder shall demolish the existing structure on the said plot of land and develop, construct and build a building consisting of Basement, Stilt, Ground Floor, First Floor, Second Floor and Third Floor with terrace, at its own costs and expense, after getting the building plans and architectural drawings sanctioned from the authorities concerned. 3............10 11. That the responsibility of the entire amount required or payable for carrying out construction, development, completion of the said building....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was to fall in the share of builder. The owner would therefore have 77.5% of the undivided indivisible ownership rights in the plot and the remaining 22.5% was to vest with the builder. In addition to the ownership of the First Floor, the builder was to pay to the owner a sum of Rs. 2.25 crores as consideration against the rights in the property. 4. The owner handed over vacant possession of the property to the builder, on 13th October, 2012. Eighteen months' period was stipulated for completing the building. The admitted position on record is that the building was completed and the First Floor, which fell in the share of the builder, was sold to the builder vide sale deed dated 15th January, 2014. The owner cooperated in execution of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Counsel for the Appellant/owner submits that this is a case where liability has been fastened on the owner incorrectly, inasmuch as, under the collaboration agreement, the owner was not liable to make any payment of VAT. The construction that was done by the builder was as per the collaboration agreement and as per the said agreement, the liability of statutory dues is of the builder. It is further submitted that there is no proof placed on record to show that the amount was actually deposited with the authority. The owner was not properly served in the suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC and hence she did not put in appearance. It is, thus, submitted that the decree was wrongly passed as there is no liability that can be fastened on the own....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the property. Thus, the builder's role in this case was not that of a `service provider' but that of an owner. The builder was undertaking the construction activity, not on behalf of the owner but on his own behalf. As per clause 11, the cost of construction and other costs were to be borne purely by the builder. As per clauses 21 all taxes including house tax, property tax, water and electricity charges and other dues and demands from the date of handling over the vacant possession and during the construction period till possession is handed over back to the owner was to be paid and borne by the builder. Even the permissions from municipal authorities for sanction and approval of the construction was to be obtained by the builder. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the period of construction. This was clearly not the responsibility of the owner. 13. The conduct of the builder has also not been bona fide, inasmuch as, the sale deed for the First Floor was entered into on 15th January, 2014. In the said sale deed, the entire cost of construction and the TDS etc., have been taken into account. Until then, there was no demand for the VAT charges and the invoice is claimed to have been raised for the first time only on 31stOctober, 2014. The invoice has clearly been raised as a complete afterthought after the entire transaction stood concluded between the parties. The legal notice and the suit filed thereafter have been a result of a deliberate misinterpretation of the collaboration agreement. The cons....