TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1834
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hri Darshan Lal. Work order dated 23rd September, 2004 was placed by the Appellant/Defendant (hereinafter „Defendant‟) for erection of complete equipment for implementation of High Voltage Distribution System [HVDS] and Testing & Commissioning of HVDS as per scope of work in Delhi Distribution Area. The said work order was awarded to the Plaintiff for the Blocks- I-1, I-2, and M-1, M-2 of Sangam Vihar area, situated at South Delhi. The Plaintiff was required to do the transportation, erection, installation, testing, commissioning of H.V.D.S, excavation and fencing related works etc. The payments were staggered with 70% payment on monthly basis, 20% on mechanical completion of erection and balance 10% after 6 months from the date of handing over of all the equipment in the said colony. 3. The Plaintiff claims that the work order was completed in 2006. However, as against the total invoice of Rs. 77,58,011/- actual payment of only Rs. 60,44,883/- was made to the Plaintiff. The overdue amount was to the tune of Rs. 17,14,128/-. Despite repeated personal meetings and requests, the outstanding dues were not cleared. Legal notice was issued by the Plaintiff on 4th May, 200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owed in view of the severe medical problems being suffered by sole proprietor of the Plaintiff and his wife. The matter was thereafter heard. Analysis and Findings 8. A perusal of the pleadings and evidence in the present case reveals that the only defence of the Defendant is that REL, which is a Joint Venture Partner of the Defendant, had not certified the payments of the invoices. There is actually no dispute as to any of the documents which have been filed on record. Most of the documents are admitted. It also clearly appears that the Defendant had deducted TDS on the entire invoice amounts of Rs. 77,58,011/- and not on the amount of Rs. 62,32,159/- as claimed by the Defendant to have been certified by REL. Despite this, the Defendant did not make the payment of the complete invoice amount. 9. A perusal of the cross examination of PW-1 shows that the approval of the electrical inspector was to be obtained by the Defendant. PW-1 also admitted that the REL would visit the site for inspection and give certification to the work being conducted. PW-1 categorically stated that it was not his obligation to obtain the approval from the electrical inspector. In his evidence, PW-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... An appreciation of the evidence recorded reveals that the Plaintiff was never informed about the relationship between Defendant and REL. The Defendant admittedly was a Joint Venture of REL and NTPC. All the witnesses of the Defendant accepted that the TDS and WCT were deducted on the entire invoice amount. They also admitted that there was no document showing that there was a shortcoming in the execution of the work by the Plaintiff. Work order did contain a condition that "payments shall be made as per the actual executed quantities duly certified by the REL and Unit Rates enclosed as annexure 2. However, as per the Plaintiff's witness, these inspections were to be arranged by the Defendant. REL representatives used to come for inspection and certify the work done, however, it was not the obligation of the Plaintiff to take approval of the Electrical Inspector, REL. The plaint relies upon Rule 63 of the Electricity Rules, 1956 (hereinafter, „Electricity Rules‟) which reads as under: "Approval by inspector - Before making an application to the inspector for permission (to commence or recommence supply) after an installation has been disconnected for 1 year or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....14,128/- or that any grievance was raised by REL in respect of the works executed by the Plaintiff. 17. Almost at the conclusion of the evidence of the Defendant, a veiled attempt was made to produce a witness from REL, which was refused as the Defendant had failed to produce the said witness, despite repeated opportunities. The said order dated 31st May, 2013 was not challenged and has attained finality. Thereafter arguments were heard by the Trial Court and judgment was pronounced on 29th April, 2015. 18. Trial Court has analysed that no document has been filed in respect of shortage of delivery and W&W retention, and thus, the Defendant had no right to withhold the sums of Rs. 2,62,491/- and Rs. 23,706. The Trial Court finally found that the deduction of TDS by itself constitutes the admission that the amount was payable. 19. On the issue of TDS deduction, the Trial Court may have erred as the settled position is that deduction of TDS does not constitute an admission of liability. The Trial Court may be wrong in holding that the TDS certificate by itself constitutes an admission of liability. This is not so, inasmuch as the TDS can be deducted even on the expectation of....