S.K.AGARWAL, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant and Sri P.N. Misra, Senior Advocate, as well as Sri N.K. Sharma, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2.
(2.) A complaint was filed with the allegations that the complainant-firm was duped by the applicants. They were in­duced initially to supply them Sesame Seeds. Pursuant to the inducement the complainant had sent 17 truckloads of Sesame Seeds to the designated place in Gujarat where they were received by an officer of the ITC Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Company'). From a perusal of the various cor­respondences that are appended to this application it is very clear that the payment of price is not in dispute. What is apparent­ly in dispute is giving of 'H' Forms. The applicants by their letter dated 21-10-1994 had intimated to the complainant and his firm that 'H' Forms against their supplies are ready. They required the complainant to collect them personally. The requisite 'H' Forms were pertaining to Pannalal Rajkumar Jain Traders and Kishan Hitkari Traders. Instead of collecting them per­sonally the firm Pannalal Rajkumar con­tinued to write down to the officers of ITC Ltd., Le., the applicants in this application, to send these 'H' Forms and in case if they are not sent they will be liable to pay Central Sales Tax, interest and penalty etc. The company by its further letter dated 10-11-1994 intimated to firm, Pannalal Rajkumar, Mauranipur, Jhansi, that these 'H' Forms are ready with them and they have requested them to collect these forms personally so as to close this transaction once and for all. They have further in­timated to them that they are not liable to pay any Central Sales Tax or penalty or any other expenses towards these transactions in case if they fail to collect 'H' forms.
(3.) ON behalf of the complainant a notice dated 8-12-1994 was sent to ITC Ltd., Bombay, with the above said allega­tions. Paragraph No. 6 of this notice very clearly points out fact in issue. It is quoted for ready reference as under: "(6) That you have failed to send the Form 'H' of Central Sales-tax in spite of the repeated request of my client and are avoiding on one pretext or the other." Paragraph No. 7 also is relevant and is quoted for ready reference as under: "(7) That the amount of tax comes to Rs. 26, 20, 959.07 paise plus interest Rs. 61, 820/-." In the end in paragraph No. 8 the notice requested or required the ap­plicants to send Form 'H' or its amount of tax within 10 days from the receipt of the notice. Thus, from these three paragraphs it is apparent that there was no dispute with regard to the payment of price. The dispute was only with regard to the con­veyance of Form 'H' by these applicants to the complainant- firm. In response to this notice the letter on behalf of the company dated 14-12-1994 signed by N. Bhosleis of significance. It refers to their letter dated 10-11-1994 where by the complainant was required to collect Form 'H'. It further very clearly says: "We do not want to send them by post since there is a possibility that the packet may get lost in transit or we do not want to hear from them at a later date that some Forms are missing or any complaint of similar nature. We therefore request you to inform your client to depute their representative to collect the Forms which are ready with us." Another letter dated 16-6-1995 signed by N. Bhosle, an applicant to this application, again reiterates this fact. The Company had sent another letter repeat­ing this very fact on 6-7-1995 also. Another letter dated 18-12-1995 by way of third reminder was sent by the company, duly signed by N. Bhosle, in this regard to Shanker Lal Agarwal, who on behalf of Pannalal Rajkumar and Co. had send the impugned notice. In response to these let­ters sent from the applicants' side on 27-12-1995 a written communication was ad­dressed on behalf of Pannalal Rajkumar to ITC Ltd., Bombay. This letter clearly indi­cates that they had visited the office but Forms 'H' were not given to them, al­though 'No-dues' were already obtained in June, 1994. This further shows that it was not a case of non- payment of the price of Sesame Seeds received on behalf of ITC Ltd. by one of the applicants.;