Trial Court's Order to Summon a witness from the GST Department Upheld

Trial Court’s Order to Summon a witness from the GST Department Upheld

Issue: Whether a trial court’s order allowing a petitioner to summon a witness from the GST Department for the production of GST records related to the petitioner is valid.

Facts:

The petitioner filed a suit for recovery against another party.
The trial court allowed the petitioner’s request to summon a witness from the GST Department to produce GST records.
The petitioner argued that the onus to prove their case lies entirely with them and they should be allowed to decide which witnesses to summon and which records to produce.
The petitioner contended that even if the summoned records are found to be irrelevant, they would not be considered, but at this stage, the petitioner should not be deprived of their right to summon witnesses to prove their case.

Decision:

The court found no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court.
The court found no merit in the petition.
The petition was dismissed.
The ruling was in favor of the revenue.

Key Takeaways:

Trial courts have the discretion to allow parties to summon witnesses and produce records relevant to their case.
The court emphasized that the party presenting the case gets to decide how they want to present their case.
The court did not find it inappropriate for the trial court to allow the summoning of a witness from the GST department.
Section 69, read with section 70, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 applied to this case.

HIGH COURT OF DELHI

RNT Metals (P.) Ltd

Raka Overseas through Its Proprietor Surabh Jain

Ravinder Dudeja, J.

CM(M) 4029 of 2024 and CM APPL. 72103 of 2024 (stay)
CM APPLs. 72101 and 72102 of 2024 (for exemptions)

JANUARY 10, 2025

Mayank Rustagi, Adv. for the Petitioner.

ORDER

1. The present petition impugns the order dated 08.10.2024, whereby the respondent has been granted permission to summon the witness from the GST Department in CS (COMM) 142/2024, titled as, “Raka Overseas v. RNT Metals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.“.

2. Petitioner is the defendant in the suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff.

3. Learned counsel submits that the Trial Court allowed the request of the respondent to summon the witness from GST Department for production of GST record pertaining to the petitioner without there being any list of witnesses on record.

4. The perusal of the impugned order reveals that the case is still at the stage of evidence of respondent. Since the GST record was stated to be not in power, possession and control of the respondent, the Court allowed the respondent to summon the witness from GST Department, subject to cost of Rs. 3,000/-.

5. The onus to prove its case completely lies on the plaintiff. It is for the plaintiff to decide which witness is required to be summoned and with what record and in case the summoned record is found to be not relevant, obviously, the same would not be looked into, but at this stage, the plaintiff cannot be deprived of his right to summon the witness to prove its case, in its own way.

6. Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. There is no merit in the petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.