Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2019 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 889 - HC - Service TaxDispute 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.
|