9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 889X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT:- 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 sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2014 - - - Dated:- 9-12-2019 - THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA Mr. Sudip Deb, Adv. Mr. Nirmalya Dasgupta, Adv. Mr. R. L. Mitra, Adv.Ms. Priyanka Dhar, Adv. for the plaintiff/petitioner Mr. Utpal Bose, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Mitra, Adv. Mr. Kuldip Mallik, Adv. Ms. Labanyasree Sinha, Adv. defendant/respondent no.1 ORDER The Court : The defendants have made an application for issuing of a subpoena upon the Principal Chief Commissioner, Service Tax-I, Kolkata Commissionerate, Range-XVIII, for producing before 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, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly deposed to the effect that the plaintiff has filed return of service tax for the financial year 2012-2013 and that the plaintiff was ready to produce documents corroborating such evidence. In answer to Q. 708, witness has also deposed that he is in a position to disclose the service tax return for the financial year 2012-2013. Counsel further places Q. 714 in which the plaintiff s witness has reiterated that no document has been submitted which would show that the plaintiff has deposited service tax to the account of the defendant no.1. In re-examination, Exhibit-UU, a part of an additional disclosure, has been referred to which is the acknowledgement receipt for the financial year 2012- 2013 April to June. Counsel submits that the plain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidence or proof adduced without proper pleadings is of no consequence and will not come to the rescue of the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the evidence of the witness of the plaintiff which has been brought to the notice of this Court. The question which falls for consideration is whether the statutory authority, namely, the Principal Chief Commissioner, Service Tax can be called upon to produce a document which would throw light on the issue whether the plaintiff has deposited service tax for the specific period which the plaintiff s witness has referred to in his evidence. For considering whether such a direction can be made, certain relevant issues are required to be stated. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y be summoned to produce a document without being summoned to give evidence. Section 162 of The Evidence Act, 1872 provides that a witness summoned to produce a document shall, if it is in his possession or power, bring it to the Court, notwithstanding any objection to its production or its admissibility. These provisions show that the Court has the power to call for production of documents for complete adjudication of the issues involved in a suit. The aforesaid sections further indicate that if a Court is of the view that a document is required to be produced, the party in question will not have any option to oppose the same. The primary question is whether the plaintiff will suffer or is likely to suffer any prejudice, if produ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ff 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 decisions shown in support of the contention that evidence must be taken on the basis of pleadings and not otherwise lays down a proposition of law which cannot be called to question. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
