in support of the same. He was also unable to explain some other amounts shown as adjusted towards DSNG van. Under the circumstances, we do not see any reason to disbelieve the statement of accounts submitted by the respondent. However, we note that in this statement of accounts, the monthly payment for the month of April, 2012 to July, 2012 is shown as Rs. 5,39,328/- per month as against the amount as per agreement of Rs.4,80,000/- per month. As per the respondent this increase is due to service tax. Ms. Goel submitted that in terms of the Clause 21 of the agreement, , taxes were to be paid separately. However, we note from the appendix A- payment schedule (amendment dated 18.08.2009) that the amount of Rs.14,80,000/- per month is including the service tax. In view of this, we find that the respondent has wrongly charged Rs.59,328/- per month for the four months of April, 2012 to July, 2012 which amounts to Rs.2,37,312/-. After deducting this amount from the total outstanding, we find the balance outstanding payable by the petitioner is Rs.25,60,006/- We also see that in terms of the Clause 16 (C) of the agreement, the petitioner is to pay interest @ 18 per cent per annum for delayed payments beyond 15 days of the due date. Clause 16 (C) of the agreement reads as under:-
