2019 (9) TMI 829

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f 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 al....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t already exists and thus it would not be barred by limitation. He further submits that Order II Rule 2 CPC does not bar correction of computational errors in respect of amounts which have already been claimed and thirdly, since evidence has not yet been tendered, hence commencement of trial has not taken place. 7. This Court has heard the parties and perused the plaint. A perusal of paragraph 19 of the plaint shows that the Plaintiff has, in fact, mentioned the chart which is annexed to the plaint i.e., Annexures P-3 and P-4. A perusal of the said chart which has been presented to the Court shows that there is a separate column in respect of CENVAT credit adjusted. While the service tax is mentioned in the chart in the column titled 'Se....