TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 889
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e this Court through its competent officer the original and/or authenticated copy of Form ST-3 for the financial year 2012-2013 and particularly for the period October, 2012 to March 2013 as filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants for a decree of Rs. 9,42,59,029.28 p and consequential interest on the said amount. The basis for claiming the decree is 56 and odd unpaid bills which the plaintiff raised upon the defendant no.1 for services rendered by the plaintiff in relation to logistics and transportation services. This application has been filed at the stage of examination-in-chief of the defendant's witness in commission. The case of the defendants is that the majority of the bills which the pla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sure, has been referred to which is the acknowledgement receipt for the financial year 2012- 2013 April to June. Counsel submits that the plaintiff's witness has relied upon three documents to show that the plaintiff has paid service tax return for April to June, July to September and October to March for the financial year 2012-2013. Counsel places this document and questions whether this document at all corroborates the evidence taken, namely that the plaintiff has deposited service tax specifically to the account of the defendant no.1 in relation to the transaction for the financial year 2012-2013. Learned counsel for the plaintiff opposes the application on the ground of absence of any pleading in the written statement or the counter-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vidence. For considering whether such a direction can be made, certain relevant issues are required to be stated. The plaintiff has claimed Rs. 9 crores and odd from the defendants on account of unpaid bills for services rendered. Exhibit-G, which are the bills in question, forms the basis of the amounts claimed. On perusal of these bills it is evident that each of the bills contains a component of service tax and mentions the service tax registration number, services tax range and division etc. of the plaintiff. The bills therefore clearly indicate the statutory obligation of the plaintiff as a service provider to deposit service tax on the transactions which form the subject matter of the suit and in relation to which the plaintiff has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rimary question is whether the plaintiff will suffer or is likely to suffer any prejudice, if production of the document is called for. The view of this Court to that question is clearly in the negative. It is nobody's case that the document, if produced, would establish that no service tax amounts have been deposited by the plaintiff to the account of the defendants. On the contrary, the document is necessary to prove and/or corroborate the evidence of the plaintiff's witness that service tax has been deposited by the plaintiff on the defendant's account but no document has been submitted from which this would be evident. Q. 668, 708 and 714 are reproduced below : "Q.668. I am further putting it to you that the suit is bad for misjoin....