2019 (12) TMI 889 - HC - Service Tax

Dispute between parties in relation to proof of services rendered and service tax liability - Seeking help from service tax department to prove its case - Praying for Issuing of a subpoena upon the Principal Chief Commissioner, Service Tax - production of authenticated copy of Form ST-3 for the financial year 2012-2013 - case of the defendants is that the majority of the bills which the plaintiff claims to be due and payable are either fictitious or have already been cleared twice over. Whether the plaintiff will suffer or is likely to suffer any prejudice, if production of the document is called for? HELD THAT - 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. It was the specific case of the plaintiff s witness that the plaintiff has filed its return of service tax for the Financial Year 2012 - 2013 and that no corroborative documents have been disclosed but that the plaintiff is ready to produce the same. The evidence, therefore, leads this Court to presume that there may be documents which would lend credence to the plaintiff s case that the plaintiff has indeed deposited service tax to the account of the defendants in relation to the transactions forming the subject matter of the suit. Hence, the resistance of the plaintiff to the present application is quite confounding as the document may actually come to the aid of the plaintiff in proving its case. After all the plaintiff must prove the amounts claimed in the suit. The position in this case would have been different if the defendants had called for the document without the plaintiff s witness deposing either to service tax or any deposit made in relation to such. The plaintiff s witness has not only made specific statements in relation to deposit of service tax but also offered to produce the documents in question. The most important issue is that the bills, forming part of Exhibit-G, disclose a clear component relating to service tax. These bills admittedly form the basis of the plaintiff s claim in the suit. A subpoena is directed to be issued upon the Principal Chief Commissioner, Service Tax - I, Kolkata Commissionerate, Range-XVIII for production of the original or authenticated copy of Form ST-3 for the Financial Year 2012 - 2013 for the period of October, 2012 - March, 2013 as filed by Crown Transport Private Limited having service tax no.AABCC3754HSD001 - application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for issuing a subpoena upon the Principal Chief Commissioner, Service Tax for producing Form ST-3 for the financial year 2012-2013.
2. Claim by plaintiff against defendants for unpaid bills for logistics and transportation services.
3. Defendants' contention of fictitious bills and excess payments.
4. Lack of production of documents supporting service tax claims by the plaintiff.
5. Legal arguments regarding the necessity of pleadings for relief claimed in a suit.
6. Court's consideration of statutory authority's role in producing documents.
7. Examination of relevant legal provisions for document production in a civil suit.
8. Assessment of potential prejudice and necessity of the requested document.
9. Analysis of witness statements regarding service tax deposits.
10. Decision on the application for issuing a subpoena for Form ST-3.

Analysis:
1. The defendants applied for a subpoena to the Principal Chief Commissioner, Service Tax for Form ST-3 of 2012-2013. The plaintiff claimed ?9.42 crores for unpaid bills, with a service tax component.
2. Defendants alleged fictitious bills and excessive payments, counterclaiming against the plaintiff.
3. Plaintiff failed to produce documents supporting service tax claims, leading to legal arguments on pleading necessity for relief claimed.
4. Court considered the role of the statutory authority in document production and examined legal provisions for document production in civil suits.
5. The court assessed potential prejudice and the necessity of the requested document, focusing on witness statements regarding service tax deposits.
6. Decision: The court allowed the application for a subpoena for Form ST-3 to verify service tax deposits for the specified period.