Delhi District Court
M/S Brindco Sales Private Limited vs Sri Raja Rajeshwari Hotel. Pvt. Ltd on 3 March, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANISHA KHURANA KAKKAR,
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER, SOUTH-EAST
DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Presided By : Ms. Manisha Khurana Kakkar, DJS
Civil Suit No. 954/19
M/S BRINDCO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED
REGD OFFICE:
S-53, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
PHASE-II, NEW DELHI-110020. ... Plaintiff
Versus
SRI RAJA RAJESHWARI HOTEL. PVT. LTD.
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
41, NEW NO. 62, THIRUMALAI PILLAI ROAD,
CHENNAI, TAMIL DANU- 600017
... Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 68.793/- ALONGWITH
INTEREST & COST.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 23.05.2019
DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS : 02.03.2022
DATE OF DECISION : 03.03.2022
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff's case:
1. The case of the plaintiff as discernible from the plaint of this suit and the documents filed along with the plaint of this suit is that the plaintiff is a private limited company having its registered office at S-53, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-
II, New Delhi-110020. It is further stated that the plaintiff company is India's leading importer and distributor of Alcoholic Beverages with at PAN India M/S BRINDCO SALES PVT. LTD. VS. SRI RAJA RAJESHWARI CS NO. 954/19 page 1 of 7 presence and Ms. Swati Nehra is the authorized representative of the Plaintiff company vide Board resolution dated 15.07.2022 and she has been deputed and authorized to sign, verify, institute and pursue the present suit against the defendant. It is further stated that the defendant placed all the orders of purchase of alcoholic beverages with the Plaintiff from time to time at its registered office at Delhi and the contract for the supply was concluded at Delhi . It is further stated that plaintiff raised invoices for the purchases made by the defendant.
2. It is further stated that the defendant represented to the Plaintiff that they are a registered dealer with Sales Tax Department in Tamil Nadu under Sale Tax Act vide CST No. 33651521858 and TIN no. 33651521858 and asked the plaintiff not to charge full Tax, as the defendant would supply statutory C-Form in terms of Section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act.
3. Plaintiff states that the sale of good's of the plaintiff is taxable @ 20% as per Schedule IV of the DVAT Act. However, if the buyer supplies C-Form against the goods so purchased then tax is levied as Central Sales Tax @2%. It is further stated that as per the clear admission and assurances of the defendant to supply the C- Form for all the purchases, plaintiff charged the defendant for CST @ 2% on total billed amount. It is further stated that in the absence of C-Form, plaintiff would have charged VAT @ 20% from the defendant. It is further stated that defendant got the exemption from paying the differential tax @ 18% on total billed amount to the plaintiff and also enabled to sell its products to the defendant by levying CST @ 2% instead of levying 20%.
4. It is further stated that as per Section 8(1)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, sales tax on interstate sales is 2% or state rate whichever is lower. It is further M/S BRINDCO SALES PVT. LTD. VS. SRI RAJA RAJESHWARI CS NO. 954/19 page 2 of 7 stated that if the purchasing dealer does not provide the required "C" forms to the selling dealer, the plaintiff shall become liable to pay balance tax payable plus penalty as applicable.
5. It is further stated that defendant had made the purchase for the financial year 2016-17 against following Bills/Invoices, No. OS/16/00171 dated 06.05.2016 for Rs. 38,112.02 with CST charged @ 2%, i.e. Rs. 762.24 No. OS/16/00172 dated 06.05.2016 for Rs. 39,556.39 with CST charged @ 2%, i.e., RS. 791.13 No. OS/16/00763 dated 26.07.2016 for Rs. 48,001.37 with CST charged @ 2%. i.e. Rs. 960.02 No. OS/ 16/01113 dated 16.09.2016 for Rs. 48,362.47 with CST charged @ 2%, i.e., Rs. 967.24 No. O/S 16/0214 dated 15.12.2016 for Rs. 98,169.30 with CST charged @ 2%, i.e., Rs. 1,963.38 as raised by the plaintiff.
6. It is further stated that the total VAT chargeable under above invoices calculated as per Schedule IV of Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2002 @ 20% of billed amount is Rs. 54,440.31. It is further stated that the CST charged @ 2% on billed amount for above invoices is Rs. 5,444.01/-.
7. It is further stated that the defendant promised to send the C-Form but delayed/avoided to supply the same on one or the other pretext. The form was required to be given/handed over by the defendant to the plaintiff before the closing of the financial year i.e. or 31.03.2017 for the financial year 2016-2017. It is further stated that the non-supply of the C-Form by the defendant to the plaintiff M/S BRINDCO SALES PVT. LTD. VS. SRI RAJA RAJESHWARI CS NO. 954/19 page 3 of 7 has rendered the plaintiff to suffer additional tax liability @18% on the total aforementioned billed amount i.e. Rs. 48,995/- @15% up to date, by the VAT Department Delhi. It is further stated that the interest @ 15% on Rs. 48,995/- from 21.06.20216 till 15.05.2019 amounts to Rs. 19,117/-. It is further stated that the defendant is liable to pay the total amount of Rs. 68,793.12/- inclusive of TCS of RS. 681.12 till 15.05.2019 for the invoices for the financial year 2016-2017. Hence, plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking relief of mandatory injunction for supply of C-Forms.
8. The summons for settlement of issues of this suit were ordered to be issued qua the defendant, on 23.05.2019. The summons were served on the defendant on 30.08.2019. However, despite service of summons, defendant failed to appear before the court and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 19.09.2019. Thereafter, matter was listed for Ex-parte evidence of the plaintiff.
Plaintiff's Evidence:
9. Counsel for the plaintiff had relied upon judgment Satya Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd., CS(OS) 1213/2011 whereby Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as follows:
"5. I am of the opinion that no purpose will be served in such cases by directing the plaintiffs to lead ex-parte evidence in the form of affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and which invariably is a repetition of the contents of the plaint. The plaint otherwise, as per the amended CPC, besides being verified, is also supported by affidavits of the plaintiffs. I fail to fathom any reason for according any additional sanctity to the affidavit by way of examination-in- chief than to the affidavit in support of the plaint or to any exhibit marks being put on the documents which have been filed by the plaintiffs and are already on record".
M/S BRINDCO SALES PVT. LTD. VS. SRI RAJA RAJESHWARI CS NO. 954/19 page 4 of 7
10. In view of the aforesaid judgment, since no purpose would have been served by leading ex-parte evidence in the present matter, hence the same was dispensed with vide order dated 02.08.2021.
11. In order to adjudicate upon this suit, I had heard Sh. Vibhore Kush, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff, on 06.08.2021. During the course of arguments, counsel for plaintiff had inter-alia submitted that the case of the plaintiff stands duly proved by virtue of the unchallenged averments made in plaint as well as the annexed documents therewith and as such, the plaintiff should be granted the decree, as prayed for.
Findings:-
12. It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff had supplied goods/beverages to the defendant vide Bills/ invoices no. No. OS/16/00171 dated 06.05.2016 for Rs. 38,112.02, OS/16/00172 dated 06.05.2016 for Rs. 39,556.39, OS/16/00763 dated 26.07.2016 for Rs. 48,001.37, OS/16/01113 dated 16.09.2016 for Rs. 48,362.47 , OS/16/0214 dated 15.12.2016 for Rs. 98,169.30. The said bills/ invoices have been placed on record on behalf of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has claimed that the defendant had failed to supply C- Forms in respect of the said Bills and therefore, plaintiff's liability to pay 18% of the CST (differential CST) had accrued.
13. Defendant has not appeared to contest the present suit and the present suit has remained uncontroverted and unrebutted. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the averments made in the plaints. Perusal of the record shows that as per the said bills/ invoices placed on record, the goods were supplied to the defendant from Okhla Industrial Area/Delhi, which falls within the jurisdiction of this Court.
M/S BRINDCO SALES PVT. LTD. VS. SRI RAJA RAJESHWARI CS NO. 954/19 page 5 of 7
14. Article 1 of Schedule 1 of Limitation Act is reproduced as under:
PART I- Suits Relating to Accounts SL No. DESCRIPTION OF PERIOD TIME FROM SUIT OF WHICH LIMITATI PERIOD ON BEGINS TO RUN
1. For the balance due The close of the on a mutual, open and year in which the current account where last item admitted there have been or proved is reciprocal demands Three years entered in the between the parties. account; such year to be computed as in the account.
15. As aforementioned, bills were raised on 06.06.2016, 06.05.2016, 26.07.2016, 16.09.2016 and 15.12.2016. In view of the aforesaid bills, placed on record on behalf of the plaintiff, it is evident that there was a running account of the defendant for supply of goods. Therefore, since the last invoice was raised on 15.12.2016, therefore, the period of limitation had commenced after the close of the financial year that is with effect from 01.04.2017. The present suit had been filed on 23.05.2019, that is with effect from 3 years of commencement of limitation on 01.04.2017. Thus, the present suit had been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. In view of the aforesaid averments and bills placed on record, plaintiff has proved its case against the defendant.
M/S BRINDCO SALES PVT. LTD. VS. SRI RAJA RAJESHWARI CS NO. 954/19 page 6 of 7
16. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts, this suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. It is held that the the plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for. Defendant is directed to supply the C- Forms for the financial year 2016-17 to the plaintiff in respect of the aforementioned invoices. No order as to costs.
17. After preparation of the decree sheet by the Reader, the file shall be consigned to the record room. MANISHA Digitally signed by MANISHA KHURANA KHURANA KAKKAR Date: 2022.03.28 14:14:12 KAKKAR +0530 Announced in open Court (Manisha Khurana Kakkar) today on 03.03.2022 Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi M/S BRINDCO SALES PVT. LTD. VS. SRI RAJA RAJESHWARI CS NO. 954/19 page 7 of 7