TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 832
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the defendants, the plaintiffs have supplied goods to the defendants. After supply of materials, the plaintiffs have raised GST invoices for the period of 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. The defendants have been paying the bills as raised by the plaintiffs for periodical supplies on an ad-hoc basis. For the financial year 2018-2019, the outstanding due was Rs. 25,58,231/-, which was carried forward as an opening balance outstanding for the year 2019-2020. The plaintiffs further supplied materials to the defendants aggregating to an amount of Rs. 1,37,65,132/- excluding the outstanding due of Rs. 25,58,231/-. The defendants have made payment of Rs. 86,29,800/- leaving the balance amount of Rs. 77,05,223/-. 3. On 5th June, 2020, the plaintiffs have sent a notice to the defendants requesting for payment of the balance amount of Rs. 77,05,223/-. On 2nd January, 2022, the defendants have sent a reply to the plaintiffs stating that the defendants have made all the payments as due and payable to the plaintiffs to the extent of Rs. 83,57,800/- and the goods valued for the remaining amount of Rs. 55,24,252/- were returned to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have made enquiries with GST authorities....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 SCC OnLine Cal 413. 9. Per contra, Mr. Sakya Sen, Learned Senior Advocate representing the defendants submits that the case made out by the plaintiffs in the present application is beyond the pleading in the plaint. He submits that no documents in connection with GST proceeding or relating to the same are pleaded in the suit. 10. Mr. Sen submits that in the reply itself the defendants have disclosed that the defendants have returned goods worth of Rs. 55,24,252/- to the plaintiffs vide purchase return invoice No. G0098/19-20 dated 30th August, 2019 which is also reflected in GSTR-2A with GSTIN 19AAPFV4844A1ZX having trade name M/s Vihaan Technologies but the plaintiffs have not disclosed the same in the plaint. 11. Mr. Sen submits that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is a Commercial suit but the documents relied by the plaintiffs in the present application were not disclosed in the plaint. He submits that the additional documents relied by the plaintiffs in the present application and in the supplementary affidavit cannot be looked into as the plaintiffs have not sought for any leave to produce additional documents which were not disclose in the suit. 12. Mr. Sen submits th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4,88,833/-. The defence of the defendants that the defendants have returned goods worth of Rs. 55,24,252/- to the plaintiff no.1 company vide its purchase return invoice dated 30th August, 2019. The plaintiffs relied upon the notice issued by the GST Authorities under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017 wherein the GST Authorities called upon the plaintiffs to submit Sales and Purchase invoices issued/ received from the defendants company as well as the details of payment received/made with the defendants company along with relevant bank statement. 18. The plaintiffs have relied upon the statement of the transporter recorded by the GST Authorities during enquiry wherein the transporter stated that he was never engaged by the defendants for transporting materials from defendants place of business situate at first floor of the premises No. 7, Pollock Street, Kolkata to the plaintiffs at their office situated at the ground floor of the same premises. 19. The contention of the defendants that on the complaint of the plaintiffs, the GST Authorities have initiated proceedings and a show cause notice was issued to the defendants and the defendants have filed reply to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat stage. It need not to go into the correctness or otherwise of all the contentions raised by the parties. 24. In the case of Harleen Jairath (Supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held that there cannot be an absolute proposition that in a money claim no order of injunction or attachment or receiver could be made. 25. In the case of Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the object of Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in particular, is to prevent any defendant from defeating the realization of the decree that may ultimately be passed in favour of the plaintiff, either by attempting to dispose of, or remove from the jurisdiction of this Court, his movables. 26. In the case of Sunil Kakrania & Ors. (Supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held that the statement made in the application for attachment before judgment was that the defendant is in a ruinous condition and that if the decree was passed in the suit, the plaintiff would not be in a position to execute the decree if the defendant was able to transfer or alienate the property mentioned. On the basis of such vague allegation, in our view, no or....