Delhi District Court
Zaneka Healthcare Limited vs Nadeem Ahmed on 21 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS AUNRADHA JINDAL, ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- JUDGE SMALL CAUSE
COURT-CUM-GUARDIAN JUDGE, DISTRICT: SOUTH,
NEW DELHI
CS SCJ 876/21
ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED
CNR No. DLST03-001677-2021
ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED
(a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act)
Bhel Ancillary Estate
Ranipur, Haridwar, Uttrakhand-249403
Through its authorized Signatory
Sh. B. K. Kushwaha
e-mail id :- [email protected]
.....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
NADEEM AHMED
S/o Shamsher Ali
Barkat Villa, C-101, Raju Sainik Farms,
Near Masjid, New Delhi-110062
Mobile No. 9999981298
e-mail id :- [email protected]
.....DEFENDANT
SUIT FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION
Date of institution : 28.10.2021
CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.1/41
Date of reserving judgment : 07.03.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 21.03.2025
JUDGMENT
The Case
1. The present case arises from a commercial dispute between Zaneka Healthcare Limited (plaintiff) and Sh. Nadeem Ahmed (defendant) concerning the payment of commission and the issuance of a Goods and Services Tax (GST) invoice. The dispute stems from a business transaction wherein the defendant, acting as a commission agent, facilitated a pharmaceutical supply contract between the plaintiff and the Ministry of Scientific Research and Innovation, Republic of Cameroon.
2. Pursuant to this arrangement, the plaintiff paid the defendant a commission of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore only) in two installments on 08.07.2020 and 10.07.2020, deducting TDS of Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand only). The plaintiff asserts that the defendant was contractually and statutorily obligated to issue a GST invoice for the amount received. However, despite repeated requests, the defendant failed to issue the invoice, thereby exposing the plaintiff to potential tax liabilities and regulatory complications.
CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.2/41
3. The defendant, in his defense, contends that he was never required to issue a GST invoice, as the entire GST liability rested with the plaintiff. He further claims that the plaintiff's demand is an afterthought, made with the intent to evade financial commitments. The defendant initiated criminal proceedings against the plaintiff, alleging financial misconduct.
4. The plaintiff, therefore, seeks a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to issue the GST invoice and deposit the applicable tax with the concerned authorities.
5. This Court has duly considered the final arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both parties. The Court has meticulously examined the entire record, giving careful attention to the pleadings, the evidence presented, and the submissions made on behalf of the parties as well as written submissions filed on behalf of defendant. Each aspect of the case has been analysed in light of the relevant facts and law, ensuring that all material brought before the Court has been fully reviewed and assessed in reaching a fair and just decision.
The Plaint
6. The plaintiff, Zaneka Healthcare Limited, is a company duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, having its registered office at Bhel Ancillary Estate, Ranipur, Haridwar, Uttarakhand - 249403. The present suit has been CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.3/41 instituted through Sh. B.K. Kushwaha, who is fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case. By virtue of a Board Resolution dated 21.10.2021, he has been duly authorized to represent the plaintiff company in all legal matters before courts across India, including executing pleadings, verifying statements, and undertaking all ancillary acts related to the present suit.
7. The plaintiff company has been engaged in the manufacturing of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations for over two decades and enjoys a strong reputation in the industry. The plaintiff's manufacturing unit is WHO-GMP certified and adheres to all statutory regulations issued by the Government of India and the Controller of Drugs. The company employs state-of-the-art machinery and a highly trained workforce, enabling it to supply pharmaceutical products to several international markets while maintaining a distinct presence in the industry.
8. The plaintiff company strictly complies with all statutory obligations, including those related to Goods and Services Tax (GST) and accounting standards. The company maintains duly audited books of accounts, undergoes statutory audits, and employs an internal auditor to ensure financial compliance and rectify any discrepancies.
9. In April 2020, the defendant, Nadeem Ahmed (S/o.
Shamsher Singh), approached the plaintiff and represented himself as an intermediary with corporate connections to CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.4/41 various foreign agencies. The defendant claimed to have procured business contracts from international entities and executed them through nationalized manufacturers in India on a commission basis.
10.The defendant further assured the plaintiff that he had a strong business connection with the Ministry of Scientific Research and Innovation, Republic of Cameroon, and could secure a significant order for medicinal and pharmaceutical products if an agreement regarding his commission was finalized. In order to instill confidence in the plaintiff company, the defendant specified the quantities of goods required for the Republic of Cameroon's Ministry of Scientific Research and Innovation:
o 5000 Boxes of Azithromycin o 300 Kg of Azithromycin Raw Materials o 50000 Boxes of Hydrochloroquine o 5 Kg of Hydrochloroquine Raw Material
11.Following detailed negotiations, it was mutually agreed that the defendant would receive a commission of approximately Rs. 2.25 crores, subject to adjustments for raw material availability, TDS liability, and GST compliance. The defendant explicitly agreed to bear the GST liability on the commission amount.
12.The plaintiff, complying with WHO-GMP standards, successfully secured the purchase order from the Republic of Cameroon, which was processed through the defendant.
CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.5/41 Pursuant to this, the plaintiff supplied pharmaceutical products valued at Rs. 7,51,88,493/- through two invoices:
o Invoice No. Exp 2000004 dated 10.07.2020 for Rs.
6,83,90,216/-
o Invoice No. Exp 2000005 dated 10.07.2020 for Rs.
67,89,420/-
13.Upon successful execution of the contract, the plaintiff company, in good faith, transferred a total commission of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- to the defendant via bank transactions in two installments of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- each on 08.07.2020 and 10.07.2020. At the time of these transactions, the defendant assured the plaintiff that he would issue the requisite GST Invoice for the commission received after consulting his financial advisor. In further compliance, the plaintiff also deposited Rs. 7,50,000/- as TDS against the commission payment on 10.07.2020 with the relevant tax authorities, duly reflecting the nature of payment in the records.
14.Despite repeated follow-ups via numerous phone calls and reminders, the defendant failed to issue the GST Invoice against the commission received. As a result, the commission amount of Rs. 2 crores remained unaccounted for in the plaintiff's books, classified as "Suspense Entries"
due to the absence of a supporting invoice. The non- issuance of the GST Invoice exposed the plaintiff to potential financial liabilities, including tax penalties under GST, the Income Tax Act, and the Companies Act.
CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.6/41
15.To evade his GST obligations, the defendant deliberately refrained from raising an invoice, thereby withholding GST payments and placing an undue burden on the plaintiff. Instead of fulfilling his legal obligations, the defendant maliciously issued a legal notice on 19.07.2020, raising a false claim of Rs. 75,00,000/- against the plaintiff. The plaintiff duly refuted these baseless claims by sending a reply notice on 30.07.2020.
16.Subsequently, the defendant, in an attempt to harass and pressurize the plaintiff, filed a Criminal Complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Court, Delhi, alleging offenses under Sections 120B, 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 472, 473, and 34 IPC. In his criminal complaint, the defendant admitted to receiving Rs. 2 crores but failed to produce any GST Invoice, further highlighting his wrongful intent.
17.The plaintiff company has been left with no alternative but to seek legal recourse through the present suit to safeguard its financial and statutory interests. The cause of action for this suit arose on multiple occasions:
o April 2020 - The defendant approached the plaintiff with the business proposal.
o May 2020 - The plaintiff secured and executed the purchase order.
o July 2020 - Commission was paid, and the defendant failed to issue the GST Invoice.
o July 2020 - The defendant issued a false legal notice.
CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.7/41 o July 2020 - September 2021 - Repeated demands for GST Invoice were ignored.
o September 2021 - The plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against the defendant.
o Present Date - The defendant continues to evade his GST obligations.
18.The defendant permanently resides and conducts business within the jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, this court is competent to adjudicate the matter. The court fee for the relief of Mandatory Injunction has been appropriately affixed at Rs. 150/-. In light of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court may be pleased to:
1. Pass a decree of Mandatory Injunction directing the defendant to:
o Issue a GST Invoice against the commission of Rs. 2 crores received on 08.07.2020 and 10.07.2020. o Deposit the requisite GST amount with the concerned authorities.
o Reflect the GST Invoice in its GST return.
2. Grant any other relief as deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Written Statement
19.At the very outset, the defendant categorically denies all allegations made in the plaint, except those specifically admitted herein. The plaintiff has failed to approach this CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.8/41 Court with clean hands and has deliberately suppressed material facts. The suit is nothing but a retaliatory measure against the defendant's legitimate legal action and is a clear abuse of the process of law. The defendant, therefore, asserts that the present suit deserves outright dismissal.
20.The plaintiff's claim is completely misconceived and has been filed as a counterblast to evade legal proceedings initiated by the defendant. The plaintiff made two payments of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) each on 08.07.2020 and 10.07.2020. However, it remained completely silent on the issue of a GST invoice for over two years, only to raise this demand at a strategically convenient time. This delay itself demonstrates that the demand is baseless.
21.It is well established that GST filings must be done on a monthly or quarterly basis, not after an extended period of two years. The plaintiff's claim regarding GST liability is, therefore, nothing but an attempt to create an artificial dispute. Furthermore, the plaintiff has never disclosed the complete financial details regarding the cost calculations of hydroxychloroquine raw materials, further highlighting its lack of transparency.
22.The defendant had already initiated criminal proceedings against the plaintiff for financial misconduct, and these proceedings are pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Court of Sh. Sukhman Sandhu, Ld. MM, South, Saket, Delhi. The filing of the present suit is a deliberate ploy to CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.9/41 obstruct and delay the legal recourse taken by the defendant. The plaintiff has no legal basis to demand a GST invoice, as it was mutually agreed that the entire GST liability would be borne by the plaintiff, over and above the commission amount.
23.The defendant had also expressly waived his right to claim GST input credit since he was not the exporter of goods. The plaintiff was responsible for bearing all cargo expenses, thereby making it eligible for GST input credit from the government. The plaintiff's allegations regarding GST liability are merely a façade to escape its own financial obligations. The facts clearly establish that:
o The plaintiff made a total payment of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-
(Rupees Two Crore only) as commission to the defendant without including any GST component. o The plaintiff deducted TDS at 3.5%, which contradicts the claim that GST was to be included in the payment. o Any reasonable business entity would have ensured that a GST invoice was issued before making such a large payment, but in this case, no such requirement was placed at the time of payment. This clearly indicates that the demand for a GST invoice is an afterthought.
24.The plaintiff has failed to disclose its admitted financial liability towards the defendant. Instead, it has sought to harass and intimidate the defendant by filing misleading complaints, including a frivolous complaint before the police authorities in Haridwar. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.10/41 in Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, has ruled that litigants who attempt to manipulate the judicial system are not entitled to any relief. The plaintiff has resorted to misrepresentations and suppression of facts, making it liable not only for dismissal of the suit with costs but also for prosecution under Section 340 CrPC.
25.The plaintiff and defendant had agreed upon a commission amount of Rs. 2,16,79,750/- (Rupees Two Crore Sixteen Lakh Seventy-Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty only), excluding cargo expenses. However, the plaintiff misrepresented the cost of hydroxychloroquine raw materials, falsely claiming it to be Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) per kg, whereas the actual cost was Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) per kg.
26.As a result, the plaintiff failed to pay an additional commission of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) per kg for 1300 kg, despite repeated requests from the defendant. After receiving the full payment for the work order from the Republic of Cameroon, the plaintiff became dishonest and attempted to withhold the lawful commission dues. This is evident from various email exchanges between the parties, proving that the plaintiff was fully aware of the agreed commission terms.
27.The plaintiff's own pleadings admit that it transferred Rs.
2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore only) to the defendant and deposited Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand only) as TDS on 10.07.2020. However, the CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.11/41 assertion that the defendant had agreed to issue a GST invoice is completely false. No documentary evidence has been provided by the plaintiff to support this claim.
28.The defendant was never under any obligation to issue a GST invoice, as the agreed commission amount did not include GST. The plaintiff's attempt to impose a tax liability on the defendant is clearly motivated by its desire to evade financial obligations. It is evident that the plaintiff never demanded a GST invoice before filing the present suit. Had this been a genuine requirement, the plaintiff would have sought the invoice in 2020 itself, not two years later. Furthermore, the plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence of financial or statutory hardship resulting from the alleged non-issuance of the invoice.
29.The entire claim is a calculated attempt to fabricate a legal dispute. The defendant, having already filed a criminal complaint against the plaintiff for financial fraud, is now being subjected to retaliatory litigation. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the defendant respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
o Dismiss the present suit with heavy costs, as it is a frivolous and vexatious litigation filed with malicious intent.
o Take appropriate action against the plaintiff for misrepresentations and misleading statements, under Section 340 CrPC.
CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.12/41 o Grant any other relief deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.
Replication on behalf of the Plaintiff to the Written Statement
30.At the outset, the plaintiff vehemently refutes the false, misleading, and baseless claims raised by the defendant in the written statement. The defendant's submission is riddled with contradictions, falsehoods, and deliberate attempts to misrepresent the facts. The plaintiff has approached this Court with clean hands, seeking a legitimate legal remedy, while the defendant is evading his statutory obligations.
31.The defendant was duty-bound to issue a GST invoice against the commission received but has deliberately failed to do so, exposing the plaintiff to unnecessary liabilities. The entire defense raised by the defendant is an afterthought, concocted solely to escape legal accountability. The criminal proceedings initiated by the defendant are a gross abuse of the legal process, intended to harass and intimidate the plaintiff. The present suit, therefore, deserves to be decreed in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant's written statement is defective under Order 6 Rule 15 CPC and should not be considered as a proper written statement under the law. Consequently, it is liable to be struck off from the record.
32.The defendant's contention that the suit is not maintainable is completely false. The assertion that the suit is an CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.13/41 afterthought or a counterblast to legal recourse initiated by the defendant is wholly incorrect. The plaintiff has not cheated the defendant and is under no financial liability towards him. The demand for the GST invoice is a statutory obligation and not a fabricated claim. The defendant is trying to evade government dues, and his refusal to issue an invoice compels the plaintiff to seek legal redressal.
33.The criminal case filed by the defendant is a clear misuse of the legal process, initiated with malicious intent and devoid of merit. The defendant acted as a commission agent, and as per GST laws, he is obligated to issue a GST invoice against the amount received. The plaintiff, being a legally compliant corporate entity, must justify all financial transactions before statutory authorities. Without the necessary invoice, the plaintiff faces unwarranted financial liabilities.
34.The non-issuance of the invoice proves that the defendant is attempting to evade government taxes, an act that is both unlawful and unethical. The plaintiff had no option but to file the present suit to ensure legal compliance. The defendant's claim that he has no liability to pay GST is false. The GST liability is separate from the TDS deductions made by the plaintiff. TDS is a mandatory deduction under the Income Tax Act, whereas GST liability is separate and falls upon the service provider (defendant) who must issue an invoice.
CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.14/41
35.The plaintiff has already paid the defendant in full, and the only pending issue is the defendant's legal duty to issue an invoice and pay applicable GST. The plaintiff has no obligation to pay GST on behalf of the defendant. The claim that the plaintiff is blackmailing or harassing the defendant is false and baseless. The plaintiff has filed the present suit purely to safeguard its legal rights and ensure compliance with statutory regulations. The defendant is wrongfully withholding the GST invoice, leading to unnecessary legal and financial complications for the plaintiff.
36.The defendant cannot demand payment without issuing a proper invoice, and his failure to do so is a clear attempt to avoid government dues. The defendant has wrongly cited the judgment in Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , which is completely irrelevant to the facts of this case. The plaintiff has not suppressed any material facts and has acted in full compliance with legal norms. The allegation that the plaintiff is liable to be prosecuted under Section 340 CrPC is baseless and malicious.
37.The defendant falsely claims that the agreed commission amount was Rs. 2,16,79,750/- (Rupees Two Crore Sixteen Lakh Seventy-Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty only), excluding cargo expenses. No such agreement was ever executed. The plaintiff has already made full payment, and the defendant has failed to substantiate any additional claims with valid documentary evidence.
CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.15/41
38.The defendant's attempt to introduce new claims about additional payments for hydroxychloroquine raw materials is nothing but an afterthought, concocted to complicate the proceedings. The defendant has already admitted to receiving Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore only) as commission, along with TDS deductions of Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand only). Once the payment is made, the defendant is legally obligated to issue an invoice, but he has deliberately failed to comply with this legal requirement.
39.The failure to issue an invoice clearly establishes the defendant's attempt to evade taxes and misuse the legal system to delay compliance. The defendant's claim that he was not obligated to issue a GST invoice is completely false. Under the law, any person receiving a commission payment must issue an invoice so that the recipient (plaintiff) can record the transaction accurately in its books. Without an invoice, the plaintiff's financial accounts remain incomplete, exposing it to unnecessary penalties and liabilities. The defendant's refusal to comply with this requirement is a clear violation of statutory obligations.
40.The defendant has filed a frivolous criminal case before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Court, Delhi, solely to harass the plaintiff. The fact that no summons have been issued against the plaintiff shows that the court has found no merit in the allegations. On the contrary, the plaintiff has a legitimate legal right to demand the invoice, and the defendant's refusal to comply is a violation of GST laws. CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.16/41
41.The plaintiff has filed the suit within the prescribed limitation period, and the defendant's claim that the suit is time-barred is completely false. The demand for an invoice is a continuing cause of action, as the plaintiff remains at financial risk until the issue is resolved. The defendant's attempt to mislead the Court by falsely claiming that the suit was filed in retaliation for the criminal complaint is completely unsubstantiated.
42.In light of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the plaintiff most respectfully prays that this Court may be pleased to:
o Decree the suit in favor of the plaintiff by directing the defendant to issue a GST invoice for the commission amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore only). o Reject the defendant's baseless and misleading claims and impose costs for filing a frivolous defense. o Grant any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.
Determination of Issues
43.Based on the pleadings, the following issues were identified:-
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction for directing the defendant to raise GST invoice against receipt of Rs. 2 crores as commission and also to deposit GST amount with the concerned authority CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.17/41 and to reflect the said GST invoice in its GST Return, as prayed for in prayer clause (a)? OPP.
2. Whether plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts? OPD.
3. Relief.
Plaintiff's Evidence PW-1, Sh. B.K. Kushwaha, Manager of Zaneka Healthcare Ltd. (Plaintiff)
44.PW-1, tendered evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/1, which bore signatures at Point A1 and A2. PW-1 relied upon the following documents to substantiate the claims made in the suit:
o Ex.PW1/A (OSR) - Copy of the board resolution dated 21.10.2021 authorizing PW-1 to represent the plaintiff company.
o Ex.PW1/B - Certificate issued by the Registrar of Companies.
o Mark PW1/D - Certificate of Good Manufacturing Practices issued by the Food Safety and Drugs Administration Authority.
o Ex.PW1/E (OSR) - Copy of the purchase order dated 01.06.2020 from the Ministry of Scientific Research and Innovation, Republic of Cameroon.
o Ex.PW1/F (colly.) - Invoices dated 10.07.2020 raised for the supply of pharmaceutical goods.
CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.18/41 o Ex.PW1/G - Bank statement of the plaintiff company, showing the commission payments made to the defendant.
o Ex.PW1/H - TDS certificate, reflecting tax deductions on the commission payment.
o Ex.PW1/I - Legal notice dated 19.07.2020 issued by the defendant, making false claims.
o Mark PW1/J - Reply to the legal notice dated 30.07.2020, denying the defendant's allegations. o Ex.PW1/1A - Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, verifying electronic evidence.
Evidence Affidavit of PW-1
45.The present case revolves around a business transaction between Zaneka Healthcare Limited and the defendant, Nadeem Ahmed, wherein the latter acted as a commission agent for securing a pharmaceutical supply contract with the Ministry of Scientific Research and Innovation, Republic of Cameroon. The evidence affidavit of PW-1, B.K. Kushwaha, who is the Manager of Zaneka Healthcare Limited and an authorized representative of the company, sets out the sequence of events that led to the present dispute and establishes the plaintiff's claim for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to issue a GST invoice.
46.Zaneka Healthcare Limited, a WHO-GMP-certified pharmaceutical manufacturer, has been engaged in the business of manufacturing medicinal and pharmaceutical CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.19/41 preparations for over two decades. The company strictly adheres to government regulations, statutory audits, and tax filings, ensuring compliance with all legal requirements.
47.In April 2020, the defendant approached Zaneka Healthcare Limited, presenting himself as a business consultant with strong corporate ties in foreign markets. He assured the company that he could facilitate a supply contract with the Ministry of Scientific Research and Innovation, Republic of Cameroon, in return for a commission payment. Relying on the defendant's representations, the plaintiff agreed to the arrangement, and after detailed discussions, a work order was secured for the supply of pharmaceutical products. The defendant insisted on finalizing the commission structure before proceeding further, which was agreed at Rs. 2.25 Crore (Rupees Two Crore Twenty-Five Lakh only), subject to GST compliance and TDS deductions. Notably, the defendant agreed to bear all GST liabilities arising from the transaction.
48.Upon successful execution of the contract, the plaintiff manufactured and supplied pharmaceutical products worth Rs. 7,51,88,493/- (Rupees Seven Crore Fifty-One Lakh Eighty-Eight Thousand Four Hundred Ninety-Three only) to the Republic of Cameroon. The supply was documented through two invoices, namely:
o Invoice No. Exp 2000004 dated 10.07.2020 for Rs.
6,83,90,216/- (Rupees Six Crore Eighty-Three Lakh Ninety Thousand Two Hundred Sixteen only) CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.20/41 o Invoice No. Exp 2000005 dated 10.07.2020 for Rs.
67,89,420/- (Rupees Sixty-Seven Lakh Eighty-Nine Thousand Four Hundred Twenty only)
49.In line with the agreed terms, the plaintiff paid the defendant a commission of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore only) in two installments of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) each, on 08.07.2020 and 10.07.2020, via bank transfer. At the time of payment, the defendant assured the plaintiff that he would issue a GST invoice after consulting his financial advisor. Furthermore, as per legal requirements, the plaintiff deducted and deposited Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand only) as TDS.
50.However, despite repeated requests, the defendant failed to issue the GST invoice, placing the plaintiff in a precarious financial and regulatory position. Since the company is required to maintain proper accounting records and report all transactions in compliance with tax laws, the absence of a GST invoice meant that the commission amount of Rs. 2 Crore could not be properly reflected in its books of accounts, leaving it classified as "Suspense Entries" without supporting documentation. This exposed the plaintiff to potential scrutiny, tax liabilities, and penalties from regulatory authorities.
51.Instead of complying with the legal obligation to issue a GST invoice, the defendant retaliated by serving a legal CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.21/41 notice dated 19.07.2020, falsely claiming an additional Rs. 75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy-Five Lakh only). The plaintiff, however, promptly refuted this baseless claim through a reply dated 30.07.2020. When the plaintiff persisted in demanding the GST invoice, the defendant escalated matters by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., falsely alleging financial misconduct. Interestingly, the defendant never issued any invoice to substantiate his alleged claim of Rs. 75,00,000/-, reinforcing the plaintiff's stance that these allegations are frivolous and intended solely to harass the company.
52.The plaintiff has been left with no alternative but to seek legal recourse to protect its financial and regulatory standing. Since the non-issuance of the GST invoice obstructs the plaintiff's ability to record expenses as per the Income Tax Rules and regulatory requirements, the plaintiff faces the risk of significant penalties and additional tax burdens. The defendant's deliberate refusal to issue the invoice suggests an attempt to evade tax liabilities and circumvent government dues, creating unnecessary hardships for the plaintiff.
53.Through this affidavit, PW-1, unequivocally establishes the sequence of events and the plaintiff's entitlement to a mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to immediately issue a GST invoice for the commission received and deposit the applicable tax with the authorities. The defendant's counterclaims, legal notices, and criminal complaints are merely diversionary tactics designed to CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.22/41 avoid tax liability, and the plaintiff seeks intervention from this Court to ensure statutory compliance.
54.Thus, the plaintiff has a strong and legitimate claim, warranting relief in the form of a mandatory injunction compelling the defendant to fulfill his legal obligations.
Cross-Examination of PW-1
55.PW-1 stated that he had been the Manager of the plaintiff company since 2019, handling contracts, legal matters, and financial recoveries. The office schedule was from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM, and PW-1 had been acquainted with the defendant prior to the present transaction. PW-1 confirmed that he had reviewed and verified all documents filed before this Court. While not fully conversant with the technical aspects of GST filings, PW-1 understood that GST was filed based on invoices.
56.The plaintiff company engaged in business transactions with various entities, and in some cases, advance payments were made with the expectation that invoices would be issued in a time-bound manner. When questioned about the agreement regarding the issuance of GST invoices, PW-1 stated that there was a verbal contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. Since a substantial commission of Rs. 2 Crore had been granted, it was understood that the defendant was obligated to issue invoices.
CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.23/41
57.PW-1 stated that Mr. Archit Virmani and the defendant had a mutual understanding regarding the commission payment. It had been agreed that upon successful completion of supply to Cameroon and receipt of payment, the defendant would receive Rs. 2.25 Crore as commission. However, there was no formal written agreement documenting this understanding.
58.PW-1 confirmed that an email exchange took place confirming the commission amount of Rs. 2.25 Crore, but the same was not on record. The suggestion that the plaintiff had deliberately concealed this email was denied. While the full commission amount of Rs. 2.25 Crore was not disbursed, the plaintiff paid Rs. 1 Crore on 08.07.2020 and another Rs. 1 Crore on 10.07.2020 via bank transfer.
59.PW-1 was confronted with Para 8 of the evidence affidavit (Ex. PW1/1) and was asked whether a written agreement existed confirming that statutory dues in the form of GST were to be borne exclusively by the defendant. PW-1 clarified that no such written agreement existed. Additionally, PW-1 was unsure whether the company had received any GST rebate for the goods supplied to Cameroon.
60.When questioned about Para 10 of the evidence affidavit, PW-1 was asked whether the defendant had given a written assurance to issue a GST invoice. PW-1 stated that no such written assurance existed, nor was there any text message or email from the defendant confirming this obligation.
CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.24/41 Regarding Para 12 of the evidence affidavit, PW-1 confirmed that there was an email requesting the GST invoice for Rs. 2.25 Crore, stating that the remaining commission amount would be paid upon receipt of the invoice. However, PW-1 did not recall the exact GST percentage applicable to the commission. When questioned about whether a legal notice was sent to the defendant specifically demanding the GST invoice, PW-1 confirmed that no such notice was issued.
61.PW-1 was further confronted with Para 13 and 16 of the affidavit, where it was stated that failure to generate the GST invoice could expose the company to tax liabilities. However, no penalty had been imposed on the plaintiff company, nor had any notice been received from the GST department regarding this issue.
62.With regard to Para 11 of the evidence affidavit, PW-1 was asked whether there was any written record of the protest mentioned therein. PW-1 could not confirm the existence of such a document. However, PW-1 affirmed that no final invoice had been issued by the defendant, despite the TDS of Rs. 7.5 Lakh being deducted and a TDS certificate being issued.
63.PW-1 was confronted with Ex. PW1/H (TDS certificate), which reflected a credit of Rs. 2 Crore on 08.07.2020. The suggestion that the certificate contained incorrect details was denied. PW-1 was then questioned about Para 3 of the reply to the legal notice (Mark PW1/J) and the appointment CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.25/41 of Mr. Archit Virmani as Director of the plaintiff company. While PW-1 did not recall the exact date of his appointment, he denied the suggestion that Mr. Archit Virmani was not a Director when the reply to the legal notice was issued.
64.PW-1 was also asked about Para 15 of the evidence affidavit, where he confirmed that Mr. Archit Virmani had received a telephonic call from the police station in connection with the criminal complaint filed by the defendant under Section 200 Cr.P.C.. It was denied that the defendant had never assured the plaintiff that a GST invoice would be issued. The suggestion that the evidence affidavit was an afterthought intended to fill gaps in the pleadings was also denied. The claim that the suit was filed as a counterblast to the defendant's legal action was categorically refuted.
65.The assertion that the GST invoice demand was raised in retaliation to the criminal complaint was denied. The commission amount had never been dependent on the submission of bills by the defendant, nor had the plaintiff inflated the cost of drugs to reduce the defendant's commission. The claim that the plaintiff still owed Rs. 1.5 Crore in commission was denied. There was never an agreement that the GST invoice would only be issued upon full payment of the commission.
66.PW-1 denied all allegations of falsehood and reaffirmed that the plaintiff company was lawfully entitled to the GST invoice from the defendant.
CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.26/41 DW-1/ Sh. Nadeem Ahmed, Defendant
67.DW-1 tendered his evidence affidavit, as Ex. DW-1/A, bearing his signatures at Point A and B. DW-1 relied upon the following documents:
o Mark A: Criminal Complaint filed on 11.02.2021, pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Court of Ld. JMFC, South, Saket, Delhi.
o Mark B: Complaint filed by the Plaintiff before Police Authorities, Haridwar.
o Ex. DW-1/3: Email exchanges between the parties.
Evidence Affidavit of DW-1
68.DW-1 claims to be well-versed with the facts and circumstances of the dispute. Through this affidavit, the defendant seeks to refute the allegations made by the plaintiff and establish that the suit is an afterthought and an attempt to evade financial obligations.
69.DW-1 contends that the suit is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff has deliberately concealed material facts from the Court. According to DW-1, the present case is nothing more than a counterblast to the legal recourse already taken by the defendant against the plaintiff for non-payment of dues and acts of cheating regarding the commission owed to him. DW-1 asserts that the plaintiff had no intention of demanding a GST invoice at the time of payment and only CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.27/41 raised this demand after an unreasonable delay of two years, which, in his view, demonstrates that the claim is an afterthought.
70.The defendant claims that the plaintiff failed to disclose the complete calculation of raw material costs for hydroxychloroquine, which was necessary to determine the actual commission payable. According to DW-1, the plaintiff misrepresented the cost of hydroxychloroquine raw material, falsely stating that it was purchased at Rs. 20,000/- per kilogram instead of Rs. 30,000/- per kilogram, which led to a shortfall in the commission payable to him.
71.DW-1 asserts that as per the initial understanding, he was entitled to Rs. 2,16,79,750/- (Rupees Two Crore Sixteen Lakh Seventy-Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty only), excluding cargo expenses, but was ultimately not paid in full. The defendant alleges that the plaintiff, after receiving the full payment for the supply contract, became dishonest and attempted to withhold the defendant's rightful commission. This, he claims, is evident from various email exchanges between the parties, where he had repeatedly requested the full commission amount. According to DW-1, the plaintiff deliberately delayed payment and later fabricated the GST invoice claim as a means to avoid financial liability.
72.DW-1 denies any liability to issue a GST invoice, asserting that the plaintiff was responsible for paying GST over and above the commission amount. He further states that he CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.28/41 waived his right to claim GST input credit, as he was not the exporter of the goods. Since the plaintiff company was responsible for cargo expenses, they were in a position to claim GST input credit from the government.
73.The defendant argues that since the plaintiff had already made the commission payment without receiving any GST amount, there was no obligation to issue an invoice. DW-1 alleges that the plaintiff has engaged in blackmailing, pressurizing, and harassing tactics to evade lawful payment of commission. He claims that the present suit is a gross misuse of the legal process, filed with mala fide intent to delay legal proceedings and humiliate him.
74.DW-1 argues that no reasonable business entity would pay Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore only) in commission without first demanding an invoice, further reinforcing his claim that the GST invoice demand is an afterthought. The defendant states that the plaintiff company irrationally deducted TDS at the rate of 3.5% from the commission payment, despite not receiving a final invoice from him. He argues that no prudent person would make such a significant payment without obtaining a valid invoice, suggesting that the plaintiff's claim is baseless.
75.DW-1 emphasizes that the plaintiff's claims are merely a reaction to the criminal complaint filed by him. He asserts that the plaintiff is still legally indebted to him, which was also admitted by the plaintiff in a complaint filed before the Police Authorities in Haridwar.
CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.29/41
76.According to DW-1, the plaintiff misled the Court with the intention of securing wrongful financial gains while attempting to harass him legally.
Cross-Examination of DW-1
77.DW-1 described himself as an international healthcare consultant, working with hospitals, doctors, and foreign partners in the healthcare business. Ten individuals were associated with him during the transaction with the plaintiff. At the time of the transaction, DW-1 operated as a proprietor under a registered proprietorship firm. His firm was registered with the GST Department during the transaction.
78.DW-1 confirmed that the services offered to the plaintiff company were taxable under GST. He maintained books of accounts, handled by his Chartered Accountant (CA). He filed both Income Tax and GST returns. He issued invoices to clients for services rendered, following a standard practice of issuing a pro forma invoice initially and a final invoice upon transaction completion.
79.When confronted with his emails to the plaintiff company, DW-1 denied making any direct promise to issue a GST invoice. He clarified that a final invoice would only be issued once the entire commission amount was settled. DW-1 alleged that Mr. Archit Virmani misrepresented himself as the Director of the plaintiff company and that the CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.30/41 transaction was conducted fraudulently. He claimed that Ms. Mansi Virmani, CEO of the plaintiff company, later confirmed via chat that Mr. Archit Virmani was not a Director at the time and had engaged in fraudulent dealings.
80.When asked if the allegations against Mr. Archit Virmani were included in his written statement or evidence affidavit, DW-1 affirmed their inclusion. However, when confronted with Ex. DW-1/A, he could not identify a specific paragraph where these details were mentioned. He referred to Point No. 2 of his affidavit, which mentioned non-payment by the company and acts of cheating, along with the lack of disclosure regarding raw material costs for hydroxychloroquine (HCQ).
81.DW-1 confirmed that the tax invoice, if issued, would be covered under taxable supply of goods and services. He asserted that GST on the transaction could only be determined after the plaintiff company disclosed the actual cost of raw materials.
82.DW-1 admitted that there was no formal written agreement between him and the plaintiff company regarding the commission. He claimed that WhatsApp messages and emails documented the understanding and that a draft agreement had been shared with the plaintiff company. However, he could not locate any such document in the judicial file. He alleged that he visited Haridwar twice to finalize the agreement, but the plaintiff's representatives refused to sign it.
CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.31/41
83.When asked whether a tax invoice is typically issued at the time of service completion, DW-1 asserted that his role as a consultant was different and that the plaintiff requested the foreign client to pay directly to them to avail GST rebate. He stated that the plaintiff company received Rs. 7.51 Crore directly from the foreign client and later issued a final invoice after the completion of the order.
84.DW-1 claimed that his commission was linked to GST rebate, but when confronted with his written statement and documents on record, he could not locate any evidence to support this assertion. DW-1 asserted that the commission amount was agreed via an email dated 02.05.2020, which stated a 35% consultant fee on Azithromycin and an HCQ commission amount to be determined later based on raw material costs. He also referred to an email dated 17.08.2020 to substantiate this claim. He denied that the Rs. 2,16,79,750/- amount included GST and stated that the final calculation depended on raw material costs and GST rebate sharing.
85.DW-1 admitted that he received Rs. 2 Crore from the plaintiff company as part of the commission. He stated that the final commission amount could only be determined once the plaintiff disclosed the procurement cost of raw materials. DW-1 stated that he was unsure whether the Rs. 2 Crore was included as part of his income, as his CA handled tax matters. When asked if he had placed any document CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.32/41 showing outstanding commission in his books of accounts, DW-1 admitted that no such document was on record.
86.When asked about the legal obligation to issue a GST invoice upon receiving any consideration, DW-1 stated that he did not issue invoices for part payments and that the final invoice would be raised after determining the full commission amount. He emphasized that the plaintiff paid him Rs. 2 Crore in two instances without demanding an invoice, and he was waiting for final calculations before issuing one.
87.DW-1 claimed that the plaintiff company overcharged or manipulated raw material prices but could only place on record an invoice issued by "Ipca Laboratories Ltd" dated 03.06.2020. However, the document was illegible, and the Court would need to take judicial notice of it. DW-1 admitted that he had not filed a civil recovery suit against the plaintiff company, stating that he opted for a criminal complaint instead. He denied the suggestion that no outstanding liability existed, which is why no recovery suit was filed.
88.DW-1 could not produce any written confirmation of waiving his right to claim GST input credit. He maintained that since the foreign client paid directly to the plaintiff company, the GST rebate was meant for the plaintiff. DW-1 reiterated that since the payment was made in part, he did not raise an invoice. He justified his actions by stating that CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.33/41 he was awaiting final calculations before issuing the tax invoice.
89.When asked about Section 7 of the GST Act, DW-1 maintained that he would only issue a GST invoice once the full commission amount was paid. He acknowledged that the GST Department could issue notices or impose penalties, but stated that he had not received any such notice.
Analysis and Findings:
90.The issues are adjudicated as under:-
Issue 1:
Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction for directing the defendant to raise GST invoice against receipt of Rs. 2 crores as commission and also to deposit GST amount with the concerned authority and to reflect the said GST invoice in its GST Return, as prayed for in prayer clause (a)? OPP.
91.The Onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The prayer clause (a) of the plaint reads as follows:
"a. Pass a decree of Mandatory injunction in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant directing the defendant, his agents, employees, executives, office-in-charge, assigns, attorney, heirs, representatives, family members etc. to raise the GST Invoice against receipt of Rs. 2 Crore as commission received by the defendant from the Plaintiff company on 08.07.2020 and 10.07.2020 by way of two transactions of Rs. 1 Crore each and further direction the CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.34/41 defendant to deposit the requisite GST amount with the concerned GST authorities and to reflect the said GST Invoice in its GST return;"
92.The present suit has been instituted by Zaneka Healthcare Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Plaintiff") seeking a mandatory injunction against Sh. Nadeem Ahmed (hereinafter referred to as "the Defendant"). The Plaintiff prays for a decree directing the Defendant to:
o Raise a Goods and Services Tax (GST) invoice against the receipt of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Only) as commission.
o Deposit the GST amount with the concerned authority. o Reflect the GST invoice in his GST returns in compliance with statutory requirements.
93.The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant, despite having received the commission, has failed to issue a GST invoice, thereby causing the Plaintiff significant financial and compliance hardships. The Plaintiff asserts that under GST law, any taxable service provider is mandatorily required to issue a GST invoice upon receipt of consideration. The Plaintiff further states that non-issuance of an invoice:
o Prevents it from availing input tax credit, thereby increasing its financial burden.
o Exposes it to tax liabilities and penalties under relevant taxation laws.
o Contravenes established legal principles regarding tax compliance and documentation.
CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.35/41
94.The Defendant, on the other hand, has denied liability to issue a GST invoice, asserting that:
o There was no written contract obligating him to issue a GST invoice.
o The final commission amount was yet to be determined, as the Plaintiff was yet to disclose the actual cost of raw materials.
o The Plaintiff transferred Rs. 2 crores without demanding an invoice, suggesting that it was never agreed upon. o The GST rebate was intended for the Plaintiff, not the Defendant, since the Plaintiff was the direct recipient of funds from the foreign client.
95.Upon perusal of the pleadings, evidence, and legal submissions, the Court finds that:
a) The Plaintiff transferred Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Only) as commission to the Defendant in two installments dated 08.07.2020 and 10.07.2020 via bank transfer.
b) The Defendant acknowledged the receipt of the commission amount and admitted in cross-examination that:
o His firm was registered under GST at the time of the transaction.
o He provided taxable services as an international healthcare consultant.
o He issued GST invoices for similar transactions in the normal course of business.
CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.36/41 o He maintained books of accounts and filed GST returns, confirming awareness of his tax obligations.
96.The Defendant's argument that the final commission amount was yet to be determined lacks evidentiary support. No documentary proof was submitted to show that any balance commission calculation was pending. The Defendant's own cross-examination revealed a general practice of issuing GST invoices for other transactions, undermining his claim that an invoice was not required for this specific transaction.
97.Section 7 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, defines taxable supply as the provision of goods or services for consideration. The Defendant's services fall within this definition, making them subject to GST. Section 31(2) of the GST Act mandates that a tax invoice must be issued when payment is received. It is trite that issuance of invoices cannot be withheld on the grounds that further commission calculations remain pending. Rule 47 of the CGST Rules, 2017 stipulates that a tax invoice must be issued within 30 days of receiving payment for services.
98.The Defendant's argument that he was not contractually bound to issue an invoice is irrelevant, as statutory tax obligations override private contractual terms. The Defendant's assertion that the GST rebate was meant for the Plaintiff does not negate his independent duty to issue an invoice and deposit the GST collected with the authorities.
CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.37/41 Furthermore, withholding a GST invoice exposes the Plaintiff to regulatory scrutiny, penalties, and compliance burdens, which are not legally justified given that the consideration for services has already been received by the Defendant.
99.While the Plaintiff has successfully established a legal entitlement to a mandatory injunction, considering the Defendant's contention that the final commission amount remains unsettled, the relief granted must be subject to reasonable conditions. Accordingly, the Court directs as follows:
a) The Defendant is directed to issue a GST invoice for Rs.
2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Only) within 30 days from the date of this order, in compliance with GST laws.
b) The Defendant shall deposit the applicable GST amount with the concerned tax authority and ensure that the same is reflected in his GST returns, in accordance with law.
c) If the Defendant claims an additional commission amount is due, he is at liberty to file a civil recovery, if so advised. The existence of such a claim shall not delay the Defendant's obligation to issue a GST invoice for Rs. 2 crores.
d) The Defendant is directed to issue a GST invoice for Rs.
2 crores within 30 days, irrespective of any pending commission disputes. Any additional commission, if due, shall be subject to separate legal proceedings, and CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.38/41 the Defendant may issue a supplementary invoice if any further payments are received.
e) In case of non-compliance by the Defendant, the Plaintiff shall be at liberty to approach the GST authorities, who have the statutory power to enforce compliance, impose penalties, and recover unpaid tax dues.
100. This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue 2:
Whether plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts? OPD.
101. The Onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant.
102. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff misrepresented facts and suppressed material information regarding:
o The role of Mr. Archit Virmani, who allegedly misrepresented himself as the Director. o The actual cost of raw materials, which was necessary to determine the final commission amount. o The plaintiff's failure to demand a GST invoice before filing the suit, suggesting that the claim was an afterthought.
o The plaintiff's alleged tax manipulations, including possible GST rebate claims.
CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.39/41
103. However, the defendant failed to provide documentary proof to establish that:
o The plaintiff knowingly concealed material facts --the plaintiff's right to demand a GST invoice exists independently of any prior communication. o The plaintiff was engaging in fraudulent practices--no direct evidence was submitted to support the claim that raw material prices were deliberately manipulated. o The plaintiff was attempting to evade taxes --the defendant failed to present evidence that the plaintiff had already availed GST rebate, making the demand for an invoice unjustified.
o The plaintiff's failure to send a prior legal notice invalidates the claim--while no notice was sent, this does not negate the defendant's legal obligation under GST law.
104. Thus, this issue is decided against the defendant.
Relief:
105. In view of the foregoing analysis and findings, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with the following orders:
a) The Defendant is directed to issue a GST invoice for Rs.
2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Only) within 30 days from the date of this order, in compliance with GST laws.
CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.40/41
b) The Defendant shall deposit the applicable GST amount with the concerned tax authority and ensure that the same is reflected in his GST returns, in accordance with law.
c) If the Defendant claims an additional commission amount is due, he is at liberty to file a civil recovery, if so advised. The existence of such a claim shall not delay the Defendant's obligation to issue a GST invoice for Rs. 2 crores.
d) The Defendant is directed to issue a GST invoice for Rs.
2 crores within 30 days, irrespective of any pending commission disputes. Any additional commission, if due, shall be subject to separate legal proceedings, and the Defendant may issue a supplementary invoice if any further payments are received.
e) In case of non-compliance by the Defendant, the Plaintiff shall be at liberty to approach the GST authorities, who have the statutory power to enforce compliance, impose penalties, and recover unpaid tax dues.
106. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL Announced in the open court JINDAL Date: 2025.03.21 on 21.03.2025. (ANURADHA JINDAL) 17:03:01 +0530 ASCJ-cum-JSCC-CUM-GJ (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi CS SCJ 876/21 ZANEKA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. NADEEM AHMED PAGE NO.41/41