Kanwar Enterprises PVT LTD vs. Jaswinder Singh Bhatia

Facts

The petitioner, Kanwar Enterprises Pvt Ltd, is defending a commercial suit. During the defendant's evidence stage, they sought to examine an official from the concerned GST Office to prove that input tax credit (ITC) for certain invoices was not passed on to them. A Senior Assistant from the GST Department appeared as DW-2 but stated that details regarding the GST in question were unavailable, and only filed returns could be produced. The petitioner then requested the Trial Court to summon a concerned official from the GST Office in Noida to prove the relevant record. This request was declined by the Trial Court, leading to the present petition. The plaintiff, in his cross-examination, had volunteered that the GST input for the invoices had been taken by the defendant and could be seen on the GST Portal. The petitioner's contention is to the contrary.

Held

The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the Trial Court's order. The Court reasoned that while the petitioner should have been more vigilant in summoning the appropriate official earlier, in the peculiar circumstances, and considering the petitioner's specific stand and the question posed to the plaintiff, granting one opportunity to summon the concerned official from the GST Office, Noida, was necessary. The Court noted that the petitioner claimed they did not receive input tax credit, contrary to the plaintiff's statement. The Trial Court was directed to hear arguments afresh after recording the evidence of the summoned GST official. The petitioner was granted one effective opportunity to take requisite steps for summoning the witness, and the Trial Court was requested to ensure the summon was issued through all permissible modes to avoid further delay. The operative direction was to grant the petitioner one opportunity to summon the GST official and then hear arguments afresh.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in declining the petitioner's request to summon a competent official from the GST Office, Noida, to prove relevant GST records, particularly when the petitioner contends they did not receive input tax credit for the invoices in question, and the plaintiff stated otherwise and suggested checking the GST portal? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the right to lead evidence and fair trial). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that despite efforts, they could not examine a competent GST official. They contended that the Trial Court should have granted them one opportunity to summon the concerned official from the GST Office in Noida, where the record is stated to be available, to establish their claim regarding the non-receipt of input tax credit. They relied on the principle that a party should be given an opportunity to prove their case. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent (plaintiff) had stated in his cross-examination that the GST input for the invoices had been taken by the defendant and was visible on the GST Portal. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondent against the summoning of the GST official, beyond this initial statement.