Delhi District Court
M/S Nitya Tax Associates vs Sita Singh And Sons Pvt. Ltd. And Ors on 27 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH.ABHITOSH PRATAP SINGH RATHORE,
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Suit No.:CS DJ 725/18
CNR No.: DLST 01-004968-2018
IN THE MATTER OF :
M/s Nitya Tax Associates
Through Mr. Puneet Bansal,
Managing Partner
B-3/58, 3rd Floor,
Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi-110029. ....Plaintiff.
Versus
1. Sita Singh And Sons Private Limited
15 DLF Estate-II,
13/14 Mathura Road
Faridabad, Haryana-121003
2. Rajan Barar
Managing Director
Sita Singh And Sons Private Limited
15 DLF Estate-II,
13/14 Mathura Road
Faridabad, Haryana-121003
3. Vipin Kumar
HOD-Finance and Accounts
Sita Singh And Sons Private Limited
15 DLF Estate-II,
13/14 Mathura Road
Faridabad, Haryana-121003
....Defendants.
Date of Institution of Suit :28.07.2018
Date of Pronouncement :27.09.2025
CS DJ 725/18 M/s Nitya Tax Associates vs Sita Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page 1 of 18
SUIT FOR RECOVERY AND DAMAGES FOR AN AMOUNT
OF RS.4,99,700/- ALONGWITH 18% INTEREST
JUDGMENT
PLAINT
1. Brief facts, as averred in the plaint are that plaintiff is a recognized law firm specializing in the field of Indirect Taxation and allied laws. Defendant no.1 approached the plaintiff in the month of June 2017 through defendant no.2 &3 (Managing Director and authorized representative of defendant no.1) for seeking professional legal services and advise related to GST. During the entire exchange of services, communications and transactions, the defendant no.2 & 3 alongwith one Mr. Abhishek Kumar Sharma were the points of contact on behalf of defendant no.1. On 12.06.2017 during a meeting at the office of plaintiff, implementation of Pre-GST, Post GST and retainership for indirect tax issues were thoroughly discussed with the defendants. During such meeting the defendant no.2 significantly negotiated the terms of professional fee which were finalized. Plaintiff was duly instructed by the defendant no.2 to begin the Pre-GST implementation support services.
As per the plaint, a formal Engagement Letter (EL) dated 20.06.2017 was sent by plaintiff to the defendant on behalf of defendant no.1 and also to Mr. Abhishek Sharma for partnering with the defendant no.1 and its sister concern, HKS Automobiles Private Limited for providing the abovementioned services. As per CS DJ 725/18 M/s Nitya Tax Associates vs Sita Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page 2 of 18 the said letter, plaintiff put forth the professional fee for rendering the agreed services along with the terms of payment wherein Rs.4,50,000/- was to be charged for Pre-GST Implementation Support, payable in the month of June 2017 and Rs.45,000/- was to be charged for 'Post GST Handholding', payable on implementation of GST. It was also mentioned that out of pocket expenses would be charged separately and the fee invoices would be payable within 15 working days from the presentation of invoice. Plaintiff also sent a formal engagement letter for rendering indirect tax services on Retainership basis, which were to be started w.e.f August, 2017.
As per the instructions of defendant no2 & 3, plaintiff started providing professional services related to GST from 12.06.2017 onwards. From 20.06.2017, defendant no.1 started seeking plaintiff's professional expertise on various issues viz. Plaintiff's representatives/associates regularly visited the office of defendants and provided a number of consultations via telecome and in person without fail.
As per plaint, plaintiff issued Invoice No.291/2017 for Rs.4,52,000/- against the defendants, addressed to Mr. Abhishek Kumar Sharma on behalf of defendant no.1 for professional charges towards GST implementation. The defendants received the same and never objected to the same. Defendants also requested for an organized training session on GST to be provided for defendants and HKS Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Such discussions between representatives of the plaintiff and the defendants were followed by an email dated 29.06.2017 containing a detailed presentation on GST so as to suffice the requirement of the defendants.
CS DJ 725/18 M/s Nitya Tax Associates vs Sita Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page 3 of 18As per plaint, plaintiff raised another Invoice No.0431/2017-18 dated 15.07.2017 against the defendant no.1 addressed to Mr. Abhishek Kumar Sharma towards professional charges for GST Post implementation support for an amount of Rs.47,700/-. The defendants were in receipt of the said invoice and did not object to the same. The defendant no.1 from 19.06.2017 till 21.07.2017 kept on seeking the services of the plaintiff with respect to pre-GST implementation support and Post-GST hand holding for both the defendant and its allied concern HKS Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Defendant no.1 never complained about the services and rather showed keen interest in keeping a regular business relationship as per the formal proposal.
Defendant no.2 and 3 assured prompt payment towards professional charges but did not clear abovementioned invoices in time. Defendants in order to avoid paying outstanding dues sent an email dated 24.07.2017 stating that they did not wish to enter into a retainership arrangement with plaintiff. However, they maliciously avoided stating anything about the payment on invoices. Plaintiff requested the defendants to clear the outstanding payment towards professional charges vide both telecom and emails dated 25.07.2017, 20.09.2017, 27.09.2017 and 17.10.2017. However, defendants kept on avoiding paying such dues on one pretext or the other. Plaintiff was constrained to get a legal notice issued on 01.12.2017 against the defendants seeking outstanding dues to be cleared within 15 days of receiving such notice. The said notice was duly served on the defendants. However, defendants failed to clear the outstanding dues towards professional legal services provided by plaintiff.
As per the plaint, the defendants are liable to pay a sum of CS DJ 725/18 M/s Nitya Tax Associates vs Sita Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page 4 of 18 Rs.4,99,700/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
2. Written statement was filed by the defendant. In the written statement preliminary objections were taken that suit is not maintainable. There is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff. It is stated that present suit has not been filed by a person duly authorized by the plaintiff. It is stated that the director of a company or any officer of the company cannot be made personally liable for recovery of dues of the limited company/ Pvt. Ltd. Company.
In parawaise reply on merits Para No. 1,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22 have been denied. With respect to Para 3, it is stated that in the meeting plaintiff and defendant exchanged the idea of support for pre and post GST at the head office in Faridabad where the staff and record were available.
It is further stated plaintiff was asked to organize a demo for staff regarding implementation of GST. Plaintiff only visited, examined the record, provided form for change but they never organized any training program for the defendant. It is stated that defendant is not liable to pay the amount prayed. There was no such agreement between plaintiff and defendant.
REPLICATION
3. No replication has been filed to the written statement.
CS DJ 725/18 M/s Nitya Tax Associates vs Sita Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page 5 of 18ISSUES
4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 26.07.2022.
1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of Rs.4,99,700/- alongwith interest as prayed for?OPP
2.Relief.
EVIDENCE
5. Plaintiff in support its case examined Sh. Deepak Suneja as PW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. PW1 has relied upon certain documents:
(1) Power of Attorney dated 16.10.2023 as Ex.PW1/1;
(2) Computer generated copy of Email dated 20.06.2017 Ex.PW1/2 is de-exhibited as same is not on record;
(3) Copy of Invoice dated 24.06.2017 Ex.PW1/3 de-
exhibited and marked as Mark A;
(4) Computer generated copy of Emails dated 28.06.2017 & 29.06.2017 are Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW1/5;
(5)Computer generated copy of Emails dated 19.06.2017, 24.06.2017, 25.06.2017, 27.06.2017, 29.06.2017 as Ex.PW1/6 to Ex.PW1/10 are de-exhibited as the same are not on record.
Computer generated copies of emails dated 10.07.2017, 12.07.2017 and 21.07.2017 are Ex.PW1/11 to Ex.PW1/13;
(6) Computer generated copy of email dated 24.07.2017 as Ex.PW1/14;
(7) Computer generated copy of emails dated 25.07.2017, 20.09.2017, 27.09.2017 and 17.10.2017 are Ex.PW1/15 to Ex.PW1/18;
CS DJ 725/18 M/s Nitya Tax Associates vs Sita Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page 6 of 18(8) Legal notice dated 01.12.2017 as Ex.PW1/19;
(9) Original speed post receipts are Ex.PW1/20;
(10), Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act in support of computer generated documents as Ex.PW1/21.
Defendant No.2 has been examined as DW2. DW-2 has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW2/A.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
FINDING ON ISSUES
7. My finding on the Issues are as follows:
Issue No. 1.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of Rs.4,99,700/- longwith interest as prayed for?OPP Plaintiff in his evidence affidavit has relied upon 20 documents out of which 17 are emails. Stand of the plaintiff is that plaintiff was approached by defendant no.1 company in the month of June, 2017 for seeking professional legal services and advisory related to GST. On 12.06.2017 during a meeting with the contact persons at the office of plaintiff, the scope of arrangement which included Pre-GST implementation support, Post GST implementation support and Retainership for Indirect Tax issues were thoroughly discussed. Accordingly, a formal Engagement Letter dated 20.06.2017 was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant no. 2 on behalf of defendant no.1. Surprisingly enough this CS DJ 725/18 M/s Nitya Tax Associates vs Sita Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page 7 of 18 letter/e-mail has not been produced on record.
Perusal of the emails that have been produced shows that the communication has taken place between representative of plaintiff and representative of defendant.
The email dated 28.06.2017 shows that it is sent by one Abhishek Sharma, to Puneet Bansal of Nitya Tax Associates with the request to organize a training session on GST for Sita Singh & Sons Pvt Ltd.
The next email is of 29.06.2017 in which Deepak Suneja from Nitya Tax Associates has replied to the email and has referred to their earlier discussion at the office.
The next email is of 04.07.2017. It is sent by Deepak Suneja of Nitya Tax Associates. This email contains summaries & procedures to be followed for import and export of goods.
There is another email dated 05.07.2017 from Nitya Tax Associates whereby reference has been made to some previous discussions and some information regarding the GST levied on raw material for fabrication in the case of private vehicles and the difference between job work and job charge have been included.
The next email is email dated 06.07.2017 sent by Nitya Tax in which reference is made to the previous telephonic discussion.
Another email from Deepak Suneja of Nitya Tax Associates dated 10.07.2017 is on record. It states that representation has been drafted that is to be filed by their association seeking clarity on GST rate on bodybuilding activity.
Another email is of 12.07.2017 sent by Nitya Tax which states that the intimation is to be filed with authorities for sending goods to job workers under GST regime.
Email dated 21.07.2017 shows that it is sent by Deepak CS DJ 725/18 M/s Nitya Tax Associates vs Sita Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page 8 of 18 Suneja, attaching a letter to be filed with Excise Authorities.
Another email is of 24.07.2017 sent by Vipin Kumar to Deepak Suneja which states that defendant has lot of confusion as the information given by plaintiff differs from the information of other experts and due to which they cannot run their business smoothly. It is stated that training given by the team was not satisfactory so it would not be possible for them (defendant) to have retainership with the plaintiff herein.
Thereafter, there are series of emails exchanged between plaintiff and defendant. There is an email dated 25.07.2017 in which Deepak Suneja of Nitya Tax has expressed his displeasure regarding the manner of communicating the decision to discontinue their services. With respect to the observation that training was not satisfactory, it is stated by Deepak Suneja that "we are surprised to receive this comment as we are yet to provide training" and that they had been following up for couple of weeks for fixing a date for training however no date was been provided.
Thereafter, there is email dated 30.08.2017 with respect to some clarifications that were issued by Punjab Government official with respect to the GST rate.
An email dated 14.08.2017 sent by Deepak Suneja is on record. It talks about a meeting that is planned with Rajan. Reference is made to a trailing mail of 25.07.2017 in which it is stated that they have agreed for three arrangements with the defendant company i.e. for Pre-GST implementation support, post GST implementation support and retainership for indirect tax issues. The scope of work and fees of these assignments was finalized and the invoices for the same was raised on 15.07.2017.
There is an email dated 20.09.2017 sent by Puneet Bansal of CS DJ 725/18 M/s Nitya Tax Associates vs Sita Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page 9 of 18 Nitya Tax Associates to Vipin Kumar. It asks Vipin to refer to trail mails and states that they are awaiting payment of invoices and that they would wait till the end of September, 2017 after which they will be forced to take legal action.
There is another mail dated 27.09.2017 sent by Rajan Brar of Sita Singh & Sons Pvt Ltd to Puneet Bansal and Deepak Suneja stating that defendant are totally surprised to see the mail and they had clearly mentioned that they are not going to take plaintiff's retainership. It is stated that plaintiff has raised bill at their end without the consent of the defendant. Last E-mail is of 17.10.2017 sent by Nitya Tax asking for meeting and stating, failing which, that they would be compelled to take legal action.
Plaintiff examined Deepak Suneja as PW-1.
Evidence affidavit was filed on behalf of plaintiff in which contents of the plaint were reiterated. PW-1 was cross examined by counsel for defendant.
It would be pertinent to go through the cross examination of 18.07.2024 which is as under;
"Q: Whether the plaintiff is a proprietorship firm or a partnership concern?
A: Plaintiff is a proprietor ship firm and its proprietor is Sh. Puneet Bansal.
Q: When did defendant approached the plaintiff for seeking professional services ?
A: It is somewhere in the month of June, 2017 before the implementation of the GST Act, when defendant no. 2 approached the plaintiff to provide professional service over telephone.
Q: When you had the telephonic CS DJ 725/18 M/s Nitya Tax Associates vs Sita Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page 10 of 18 conversation with defendant no.2. Was there any formal agreement agreed upon between the plaintiff and the defendant?
A: Post telephonic conversations, over emails a formal agreement was sent and agreed by the defendants.
Q; Whether this formal agreement mentioned by you, is annexed with the copy of plaint? A: No. This agreement is not annexed with the copy of the plaint. (Vol. However, vide email dated 18.10.2017 as Ex PW1/18,the entire chain is enclosed).
Q: Do you have this formal agreement, mentioned by you at present with you or is it in your office?
A: I have to check the same and confirm.
Q: Can you recall and tell what all services
were mentioned in this formal agreement which you will provide to the defendants ?
A: The service covered were GST implementation and post implementation support.
Q: Can you specify the services covered in this GST implementation and post implementation support as written in formal agreement? A: We have provided the reply to queries, telephonic answers, GST presentation etc etc. to the defendants.
Q: Can you place it on record the above mentioned agreement before this court?CS DJ 725/18 M/s Nitya Tax Associates vs Sita Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page 11 of 18
A: The contents are already covered in the email annexed with the plaint and we may not be able to provide further documents.
Q: I put it to you that the monetary aspect is not covered in the email annexed in the plaint. Is it correct?
A: It is incorrect. In Ex PW1/18 from Point A to B, at page no. 48, email clearly list down the monetary aspects.
Q: What is the date of email mentioned in Ex Pw1/18 ?
A: 25.07.2017 (part of email chain dated 17.10.2017).
Q: What is the date of the invoices, raised by you?
A: Invoices were raised on 24.06.2017, 15.07.2017 which are Ex PW1/3 colly.
Q: If the invoices are raised before the date of the email, mentioned by you then how can you say that the plaintiff agreed to the above mentioned monetary terms before the plaintiff and the defendant ?
A: The terms were agreed in June, 2017 itself verbally. Which is reproduced in Ex Pw1/18 from point C to D at page no. 48.
Q: But, the email mentioned by you is written by the plaintiff. Then how can you say that the defendant agreed to the same? A: The defendants even after the invoice, regularly took services from us. This indicates CS DJ 725/18 M/s Nitya Tax Associates vs Sita Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page 12 of 18 their acceptance.
Q: How many times, plaintiff visited to the office of defendants for providing the services ? A: Most of our services were provided over emails and by phone. We may have visited defendants office once or twice.
Q: Did defendants agree or accept, the above mentioned formal agreement ?
A: The agreement was verbally agreed.
Q; You have mentioned in your plaint that I
have sent the agreement to the defendants dated 20.06.2017, is it correct?
A; Yes. It is correct. We have sent the agreement to the defendants. However, they have accepted the same verbally.
Q: I put it to you that there was no such agreement between the plaintiff and defendants? A: No, It is incorrect to say that no such agreement between the plaintiff and defendants.
Q; Then, why are you denying to produce the above mentioned agreement before the court?
A: I have already answered the same in
above answers.
Q: You mentioned the agreement was
executed on 20.06.2017 and then you raised the first bill on 24.06.2017 for Rs. 4,52,000/-, what services did you provide in these four days to justify the sum of Rs. 452000/-?
A: GST was a very complicated law as fees CS DJ 725/18 M/s Nitya Tax Associates vs Sita Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page 13 of 18 charged was in line with prevalent market fees.
Also refer email dated 29.6.2017,
4.7.2017,6.7.2017, 10.7.2017, 12.7.2017( Ex
Pw1/4, Ex Pw1/5, Ex PW1/11 & Ex PW/12) to indicate that services in relation to GST implementation were provided.
Q : What was the terms and conditions of invoices, raised by you to the defendants? A; Invoices are usually payable within 15 days.
Q: Do you stopped the services, if any of your client does not make the payment of invoice within 15 days ?
A: No. We sent follow up.
Q: In your invoice dated 15.7.2017, you have
mentioned professional charges for the month of July, 2017. How can you raised the said invoices in the middle of the month for the services of the entire month?
A; For retainership service, we usually issue invoices in beginning of period.
Q: Was the said invoice raised for
retainership?
A; The invoice was for post implementation
of support, which is similar to retainership.
Q: When was your retainership supposed to start with the defendant?
A; Post implementation support,commences from 01.07.2017.
Q: In your plaint, you have mentioned an CS DJ 725/18 M/s Nitya Tax Associates vs Sita Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page 14 of 18 email dated 20.6.2017, as being annexed with the list of documents. Can you show me the said email?
A: It is not attached with the list of
documents.
Q; Can you bring the said email dated
20.6.17 on record before this court?
A; No. I cannot bring the same. It has been
inadvertently written in the plaint and we have not tendered the same.
Q; How can you justify the rate of interest @ 18% on alleged unpaid amounts?
A; The rate of interest is prevalent market practice and same has been charged accordingly.
Q: Is the interest rate as mentioned @ 18% in the invoices?
A: No interest rate is mentioned in the
invoices."
It is evident from the cross examination of plaintiff that plaintiff is relying on a formal agreement that was entered into between parties over emails. However, it is admitted that this agreement is not annexed with the plaint and reference is made to Ex.PW1/18.
Perusal of the email that is Ex.PW1/18 shows that the communication regarding the fees and the structure of payment or charges has nowhere been discussed. Some trail mails are annexed.
Perusal of annexed emails shows that in email dated 25.07.2017, plaintiff is discussing some previous arrangements CS DJ 725/18 M/s Nitya Tax Associates vs Sita Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page 15 of 18 with the defendant company which are neither responded to by any communication from the defendant side nor accepted by it. It appears like a monologue with defendant detailing his charges and fees with no acceptance or sign of acceptance from the other side. From the cross examination, it is clear that the main agreement is not annexed with the plaint. This formal agreement was never produced before the court.
Counsel for defendant even when pin-pointedly asked the plaintiff whether he had produced the formal agreement, the plaintiff stated that contents are already covered in the emails annexed with the plaint and he would not be able to provide any further documents.
In respect to the question of monetary aspect, he has answered that 'Point A' to 'Point B' at 'Page no.48' would cover the monetary aspects however perusal of the said email dated 25.07.2017 shows that the highlighted portion is only in the nature of a unilateral communication with no sign of acceptance from the other party.
It is beyond understanding of this court that a firm that deals in complex legal issues such as GST would not be diligent enough to keep a copy of the agreement that was allegedly entered between it and its client and which has formed the sole basis of raising the invoices.
Besides, one more inconsistency in the narrative put forth by the plaintiff has been highlighted during the cross examination. Even if the email dated 25.07.2017 is accepted as a form of 'formal agreement', it is beyond understanding that how invoices on the same parameters could have been raised on 24.06.2017 and 15.07.2017.CS DJ 725/18 M/s Nitya Tax Associates vs Sita Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page 16 of 18
Sh. Rajan Brar, the Managing Director of defendant company was examined as DW2. He has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has no personal knowledge of the case and he has no knowledge of transactions involved in the plaintiff's suit. He has given a voluntary statement that there was only one time verbal discussion with the plaintiff with which they were not satisfied and hence there was no agreement between defendant and plaintiff.
In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that whatever evidence plaintiff had led is insufficient. Plaintiff has failed to show that there existed any agreement between plaintiff and defendant for services. Whatever communications have been annexed along with the plaint, show that the communication was more in the nature of initial discussion before the full time hiring of the plaintiff by the defendant. No financial liability can be imposed on this quality of evidence.
Besides, plaintiff in his email dated 25.07.2017 as discussed earlier has also stated that they have not provided training to the staff, which leaves nothing to the imagination.
In absence of any formal agreement and also in view of major contradiction & inconsistencies in the evidence of plaintiff/PW-1 and further in absence of even a semblance of acceptance by the defendant to the proposed charges, the plaintiff can't be granted any relief.
Issue No.1 is decided against plaintiff.
RELIEF:
In view of the above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is CS DJ 725/18 M/s Nitya Tax Associates vs Sita Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page 17 of 18 dismissed. There is no order as to cost.
Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to the Record Room.Digitally signed
abhitosh by abhitosh pratap singh pratap rathore Typed to the dictation directly, singh Date:
2025.09.27
rathore 18:07:48
corrected and pronounced in the +0530
open Court on 27.09.2025 (Abhitosh Pratap Singh Rathore)
District Judge-04,
South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi CS DJ 725/18 M/s Nitya Tax Associates vs Sita Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page 18 of 18