The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party must provide sufficient evidence to support their claims, especially in commercial transactions involving refund of taxes and duties.

M. Chockalingam, J.

Challenge is made to a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in C.S.No.950 of 1992 whereby the claim made by the appellant/plaintiff was rejected by dismissing the suit.

2. The plaint averments are as follows:

The plaintiff is the proprietor of The Hindu. They import newsprints. The defendant is the canalized agency for import of newsprints in India. The plaintiff had been purchasing newsprints from time to time against the newsprint allotments issued by RNI from the defendant on a running account basis. They had been lifting newsprints from the defendants buffer stocks against their various authorization in respect of the above publications. The defendant had charged an ad valorem duty of 15% of the customs assessable value for the period 3. 1981 to 22. 1982 and a specific duty of Rs.825 per m.t. Towards customs duty from 3. 1982 to 12. 1984 based on the relevant customs notification. However, the levy of customs duty had been challenged before the Supreme Court by various purchasers including the plaintiff in WP No.2656-60 of 1984. The Supreme Court by its common order dated 12. 1984, had upheld the contentions of the plaintiff. Pursuant to the same, the Government of India revised the customs duty and reduced the same from Rs.825 per m.t. to Rs.550 per m.t. Hence, the defendant is bound to refund the difference in duty. A total sum of Rs.21,65,496.09 excluding sales tax and surcharge on customs duty was due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. Out of the said claim, refund for a sum of Rs.13,68,445.13 has been paid by the defendant. After deducting the said sum, a sum of Rs.7,97,050.96 is still due and payable by the defendant. Due to categorization, a sum of Rs.1,66,207.06 is due and payable by the defendant in respect of amounts due on account of sales tax and surcharge on customs duty. The defendant is also liable to pay a sum of Rs.53,776.14 in respect of amounts due from the defendant on account of categorization which has been withheld for the period 1980-81. During the course of the business transaction, the plaintiff had been paying advance amounts to the defendant. The plaintiff had not been lifting stocks for the entire amount paid by them. Hence, the defendant is bound to pay a sum of Rs.10,16,411/- in respect of uplifted quantities for invoices from 312. 1987 to 38. 1991. Thus, the total dues from the defendant come to Rs.20,33,4423. However, the plaintiff is due to the defendant a sum of Rs.7,70,4488. After deducting this, a sum of Rs.12,63,003.35 is still due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff issued a number of letters. The defendant had issued reply letters. Since this is a commercial transaction, the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest at the rate of 21.6% per annum. Therefore, as on date a sum of Rs.12,63,003.35 towards principal and a sum of Rs.16,27,755/- towards interest, in all a total sum of Rs.28,90,758.35 is due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

.3. The suit was resisted by the defendant by filing a written statement with the following allegations:

.The suit transaction relates to the period from 3. 1981 onwards. As and when refunds of customs duty were received from the Collector of Customs, Madras, for the buffer stock, sales credit notes were issued in favour of the plaintiff to the extent admissible. Such credit note has been arrived at Rs.3,94,6180. In addition to this, the plaintiff was eligible for refund of Rs.9,39,518.31 towards uplifted quantity for buffer sales. The total amount due to the plaintiff comes to Rs.13,34,1310. But, the plaintiff were to pay a sum of Rs.9,86,548.18 to the defendant due for newsprint arrived by Vessel Banglar Mamta which was sold as High Seas Sales. Hence, the net amount due to the plaintiff comes to Rs.3,97,5894. The defendant has already paid this sum to the plaintiff by cheque No.616365 dated 11. 1992. In addition to this, the defendant ha