2018 (1) TMI 910

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....laintiff') is for recovery of Rs. 11,59,381.44. The Plaintiff, a Manufacturer of stationery products claimed that it had supplied goods to the Appellant/Defendant (hereinafter, 'Defendant') and a running account was maintained between the parties. The supplies made during the year 1991-92 and 1992-93 are the subject matter of the present appeal. 3. It is the case of the Plaintiff that though the payments for purchases were made, the ST-1 forms were not submitted despite repeated requests. In view of the non-submission of ST-I forms, the Plaintiff was forced to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,90,150/- and Rs. 6,45,012/- with the Sales Tax Authorities (hereinafter, 'Authorities') for the years 1991-92 and 1992-93, respectively. It is this amount that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ich is an admitted position, was a statutory obligation of the Defendant which was discharged by the Plaintiff only in the year 2001. Hence, the suit was well within limitation. 8. On Issue No. 1, the learned Trial court held that the Defendant had admitted categorically in his cross examination that all the bills/invoices bore his signatures, barring a few. The non-supply of ST-1 forms was also admitted. The stand of the Defendant's witness was that the ST-1 forms were not liable to be given qua the material supplied to him. The relevant part of the cross examination is set out herein below: "It is correct that I had dealing with plaintiff company. I used to receive stationary goods and made payment thereof. All the bills Ex.PW1/1 (1-217....