//
you're reading...
legal issues

Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:- “Judgment on admissions.- (1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of an party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such Order or give such judgment as It may think fit, having regard to such admissions. (2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.” 9. Plain reading of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC makes it abundantly clear that it is open to the court to pass a judgment on admissions in the pleadings or otherwise. The said provision clearly indicates that it is open to the court to pronounce judgment on statement made by the parties and documents on record can be taken note of dehors the pleadings. Admission may be made either specific or constructively. If the court is satisfied that the admission made by a party is unambiguous, a decree can straightaway be passed without taking recourse to trial.

Token coins used in Vancouver during the mid-2...

Image via Wikipedia

CS(OS)564-2009 Page 1 of 9

English: Sales tax labels on a record acquired...

Image via Wikipedia


$~22
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 564/2009 & I.A. No. 3680/2010 (u/O 12 R 6 CPC)
Decided on: 7th December, 2011
M/S EVEREST KANTO CYLINDERS
LTD. ….. Plaintiff
Through: Mr. S.S. Jauhar and
Mr. Rajesh Narula, Advs.
versus
M/S AGRO IMPEX (I) PVT. LTD. ….. Defendant
Through: Mr. Pramod Jalan, Adv.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
A.K. PATHAK,J. (ORAL)
1. By this application plaintiff has prayed that a decree in the
sum of `34,00,747/- together with pendente lite and future interest
@ 12% per annum be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against
the defendant, in view of the admissions made by the defendant in
his written statement.
2. Plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of `34,00,474/-
together with pendent lite and future interest @ 12 % per annum. It
is alleged that the plaintiff had supplied CNG cylinders to the
defendant on credit basis. Defendant represented that it was
registered under the Delhi Sales Tax vide Sales Tax Registration no.
CS(OS)564-2009 Page 2 of 9
LC/97/208279/0898, thus, ST-1 Forms will be issued against the
purchase of CNG cylinders. Accordingly, plaintiff did not charge
sales tax from the defendant. At the relevant time, sales tax @ 8%
on the sale price was chargeable.
3. Plaintiff supplied CNG cylinders to the defendant vide
following bills :-
Bill No. Date Amount (in `)
1080 05.05.2002 20,17,008.00
1100 14.05.2002 11,20,560.00
1140 29.05.2002 11,20,560.00
1147 05.06.2002 16,80,840.00
1163 12.06.2002 22,41,120.00
1171 19.06.2002 16,80,840.00
1179 24.06.2002 11,20,560.00
1180 24.06.2002 21,01,050.00
1205 13.07.2002 22,41,120.00
1296 02.12.2002 28,01,400.00
1300 07.12.2002 22,13,106.00
1302 13.12.2002 22,13,106.00
1309 25.12.2002 19,23,744.00
1316 06.01.2003 19,48,800.00
1325 15.01.2003 19,48,800.00
1334 24.01.2003 9,74,400.00,
CS(OS)564-2009 Page 3 of 9
1335 24.01.2003 9,61,872.00
1356 20.02.2003 19,48,800.00
1373 17.03.2003 5,72,460.00
Grand Total 3,28,30,146.00
4. Defendant failed to supply the ST-1 Forms to the plaintiff
despite repeated requests of the plaintiff. Sales tax @ 8% on the
total bills amounting to `3,28,30,146/- comes to `26,26,411.68.
On account of non-production of ST-1 Forms in respect of the
aforesaid bills, the Sales Tax Department vide assessment order
dated 25th May, 2006, directed the plaintiff to deposit `26,27,412/-
along with penalty of `1,000/-. Accordingly, plaintiff had to deposit
`26,27,412/- with the Sales Tax Department on 6th September,
2006. It is alleged that defendant is legally bound to pay this
amount with interest @ 12% per annum. Interest on `26,27,412/-
with effect from 6th September, 2006 till the filing of the suit comes
to `7,73,335/-, thus, making a total amount of `34,00,747/- as due
and payable by the defendant.
5. In the written statement, defendant has not disputed the fact
that plaintiff had supplied CNG cylinders to it vide the bills
mentioned in the plaint, details whereof have been given in para 3
hereinabove. It has also not been disputed that ST-1 Forms have
CS(OS)564-2009 Page 4 of 9
not been given by the defendant to plaintiff. It is alleged that
defendant was to supply ST-1 Forms to the plaintiff as and when
the same are issued by the Sales Tax Department to the defendant.
Sales Tax Department had not issued the ST-1 Forms to the
defendant which fact was duly notified to the plaintiff vide letter
dated 23rd February, 2006. The plea of the defendant is that ST-1
Forms could not be supplied to the plaintiff as the Sales Tax
Department did not issue the same to the defendant.
6. From the above, it is clear that the defendant has admitted the
supply of CNG cylinders worth `3,28,30,146/- by the plaintiff vide
bills mentioned in the plaint. This admission is unambiguous and
categorical. Similarly, defendant has also admitted non-issuance of
ST-1 Forms by it to the plaintiff. Since the defendant was
registered under the Delhi Sales Tax with registration no.
LC/97/208279/0898, the amount of sales tax @ 8% was not added
in the bills by the plaintiff. Thus, defendant was under legal
obligation to supply ST-1 Forms to the plaintiff so as to enable it to
submit before the Sales Tax authorities to claim exemptions. Since
ST-1 Forms were not produced, Sales Tax Officer vide assessment
order dated 25th May, 2006 has assessed `26,27,412/- towards the
sales tax @ 8% on the bills amounting to `3,28,30,146/-. This
amount has been deposited by the plaintiff with the Sales Tax
CS(OS)564-2009 Page 5 of 9
Department and the original challan has been placed on record. Ex.
P-28, is a letter written by the defendant to plaintiff whereby
defendant has admitted that ST-1 Forms were not supplied by it to
plaintiff. The plea taken by the defendant that ST-1 Forms were
not supplied to the plaintiff as the same had not been issued to it by
the Sales Tax Department is of no consequence. Had the defendant
not promised the plaintiff for supplying ST-1 Forms, sales tax @
8% would have been included in the bill. Plaintiff has statutory
liability to pay the sales tax or to produce ST-1 Forms issued by the
buyer. Since ST-1 Forms were not supplied by the defendant the
same could not be produced by the plaintiff before the Sales Tax
Department and as a result whereof, plaintiff had to pay sales tax
amounting to `26,27,412/- from its own pocket, which otherwise is
the liability of the defendant. Buyer has to pay the sales tax and not
the seller.
7. In Prince Plastics & Chemical Industries vs. Commissioner
of Sales Tax 2002(6) AD (Delhi) 341, a Division Bench of this
Court has observed that “The embargo on charging tax under the
Act is only in those instances where the Purchasing Dealer
contemporaneously offers ST-1 Form to the Selling Dealer. The
Sales Tax Department is neither privy to nor is it concerned with
any assurances that might have been exchanged inter se these
CS(OS)564-2009 Page 6 of 9
parties. Quite frequently ST-1 Forms are obtained from Sales Tax
Department by the Purchasing Dealer, but for sundry reasons are
not forwarded to the Selling Dealer. The only legal recourse is for
the Selling Dealer to file a suit for the recovery of the Sales Tax
from the Purchasing Dealer. There is no reason to deviate from this
position merely because, by a mutual arrangement between the
dealers, the supply of the ST-1 Forms is procrastinated to future
dates. It should be recalled that, for the benefit of the assessed, the
Rules permit the filing of exemption Forms till the time of
assessment, this is probably the reason why dealers postpone their
obtainment. There is no reason for the consequence of the dealer’s
acts of omission or commission to visit the Department. The Act or
the Rules do not prohibit the simultaneous furnishing of ST-1
Forms; they in fact envisage it. We are reproducing the Application
Form for issue of declaration in Form ST-1 admittedly adopted by
the Sales Tax Department for over thirty years. The Form
specifically envisages the supply of such Forms to the dealer in
advance of transactions.” Thus, in my view, it is obligatory on the
part of purchasing dealer to arrange for and supply ST-1 Forms to
selling dealer and in case he fails to do so, selling dealer can
recover the component of sales tax from the purchasing dealer by
initiating recovery proceedings.
CS(OS)564-2009 Page 7 of 9
8. Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as
under:-
“Judgment on admissions.- (1) Where
admissions of fact have been made either in
the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or
in writing, the court may at any stage of the
suit, either on the application of an party or
of its own motion and without waiting for the
determination of any other question between
the parties, make such Order or give such
judgment as It may think fit, having regard to
such admissions.
(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced
under sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn up
in accordance with the judgment and the
decree shall bear the date on which the
judgment was pronounced.”
9. Plain reading of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC makes it abundantly
clear that it is open to the court to pass a judgment on admissions in
the pleadings or otherwise. The said provision clearly indicates that
it is open to the court to pronounce judgment on statement made by
the parties and documents on record can be taken note of dehors the
pleadings. Admission may be made either specific or
constructively. If the court is satisfied that the admission made by a
party is unambiguous, a decree can straightaway be passed without
taking recourse to trial.
10. In the instant case, admittedly sales tax @ 8% has not been
included in the bills since the defendant represented that it was
CS(OS)564-2009 Page 8 of 9
registered with the Sales Tax Department. It was the obligation of
the defendant to issue ST-1 Forms which it has failed to do. It is
also a fact that Sales Tax Officer had assessed `26,27,412/- towards
the sales tax at the rate of 8% which has been duly deposited by the
plaintiff way back on 6th September, 2006. This fact is borne out
from the documents issued by a Government Department. In this
suit plaintiff has only claimed the sales tax @ 8% on the bills in lieu
of non supply of ST-1 Forms by the defendant. Accordingly, a
decree can be passed straightway with regard to amount of sales tax
paid by the plaintiff on account of non supply of ST-1 Forms by the
defendant, on the admission of the defendant, regarding supply of
CNG cylinders worth `3,28,30,146/- and non supply of ST-1
Forms.
11. As regards interest, plaintiff has claimed the same @ 12 %
per annum. Plaintiff has paid `26,27,412/- on account of default of
defendant for not furnishing ST-1 Forms. Since this amount has
been illegally retained by the defendant, it is liable to pay the
interest to the plaintiff, in view of present transaction being
commercial in nature. However, in my view, interest @ 12% per
annum is on a higher side. It would be appropriate to award interest
@ 9% per annum.
12. For the foregoing discussions, a decree is passed in favour of
CS(OS)564-2009 Page 9 of 9
the plaintiff and against the defendant for `26,27,412/- along with
interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 6th September, 2006 till
realization of the decretal amount. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to
costs. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
13. Application as well as suit is disposed of.
A.K. PATHAK,J
DECEMBER 07, 2011/ga

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,037 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,907 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: