49. Several letters were exchanged between the Parties during the period of 2008 to 2009, but the Plaintiff remained firm in denying the liability to pay Service Tax under the first Lease Deed. There was no consensus, as the Plaintiff was vehement about not being liable to pay the Service Tax. 50. Firstly, admittedly, in the first Lease Deed dated 28.08.2006 , there was no covenant in the said Lease Deed imposing any liability on the Plaintiff to pay any kind of Service Tax. 51. Secondly, the Defendants have tried to justify the recovery of Service Tax under the first Lease Deed, by asserting that at the time of entering into the second Lease Deed, there was an oral understanding that the tenant would clear the previous dues . However, there is no evidence whatsoever, in regard to this alleged oral understanding. In fact, had there been any such understanding for payment of the Service Tax under the first Lease Deed, nothing prevented the parties to incorporate a Clause in this regard, in said Lease Deed. In fact, in the second Lease Deed it was categorically mentioned regarding Service Tax, but there was no mention or reference regarding any liability under the first Lease Deed.
