JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, J. The present suit for recovery of !18,19,308/- (rupees eighteen lac, nineteen thousand and three hundred eight only) has been filed by the plaintiff, Smt. Manju Chawla, against the defendant, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., on the following averments. 2. During 1999-2000, the plaintiff was carrying on sole proprietary business under the name and style of M/s Shri Nath Industries for manufacture and sale of tubes of various specifications required for use in telecom industry at 14/18, Nangli Sakrawati, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi-110043. According to the plaintiff, her husband, Sh. Mukesh Chawla, was helping her in the said business, who at times acted as her authorized representative in business dealings. The present suit has also been filed by him as her special power of attorney. 3.The defendant has its operational circle in the State of Himachal Pradesh, known as Telecom Circle Himachal Pradesh with Chief General Manager as its Principal Officer. The defendant- corporation came into being w.e.f. 1.10.2000 and succeeded to all rights and liabilities of the department of Telecommunications, Government of India (DOT) including all commercial transactions undertaken by DOT. 4.DOT through its Chief General Manager, Himachal Pradesh, Telecom Circle, invited offers for supply of different types of tubes vide tender No.12/tubes/99-MM/07, dated 30.8.1999. The plaintiff also participated in the tender process and the offer submitted by her was accepted, pursuant to which purchase order dated 1.12.1999 was placed. The plaintiff supplied the entire quantity of tubes of different specifications to DOT before 30.5.2000, as required under purchase order dated 1.12.1999. According to the plaintiff, she submitted as many as sixteen bills to the tune of !2,56,26,256/- (rupees two crore, fifty six lac, twenty six thousand and two hundred fifty six only) to DOT w.e.f. 27.12.1999 to 25.5.2000 against the aforesaid supply of tubes. DOT after making various adjustments and deductions paid a sum of !10,32,879/- (rupees ten lac, thirty two thousand and eight hundred seventy nine only) as final balance vide memo dated 17.8.2000. It is averred that DOT illegally deducted a sum of !6,19,610/- (rupees six lac, nineteen thousand and six hundred ten only) on account of alleged liquidated damages, price variations and transit insurance. It is averred that DOT illegally deducted a sum of !6,19,610/- (rupees six lac, nineteen thousand and six hundred ten only) on account of alleged liquidated damages, price variations and transit insurance. It is pleaded that the dispute between the parties relating to deduction of the aforesaid sum of !6,19,610/-, was finally settled in favour of the plaintiff in arbitration proceedings, culminating vide judgment dated 22.6.2005, passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla in case No.1-S/02 of 2002, whereby the challenge laid by the defendant against the award of the Arbitrator under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was dismissed. 5. It is further averred that as per general commercial conditions of the contract contained in clause 8.3 of Section III of the tender document, DOT had “promised” to supply “Forms-D” to the plaintiff to enable her to claim reimbursement of the amount of sales tax paid by her over and above 4% under prevalent sales tax structure. 6.Furthermore, according to the plaintiff, during pendency of the arbitral proceedings, she repeatedly kept on demanding “Forms-D” from the defendant. However, on not getting any positive response, she applied for issuance of “Forms-D” in writing vide letter dated 16.9.2002. It was only thereafter that the Accounts Officer of the defendant vide letter dated 27.5.2005, asked the plaintiff to furnish proof of payment of sales tax over and above 4% in order to enable the defendant to take further necessary action. Accordingly, the plaintiff furnished all the necessary documents to the defendant in response to letter dated 25.7.2005, only by way of abundant caution, as all such documents had already been submitted to the defendant by the plaintiff. 7.It is further pleaded that the defendant vide its letter dated 22.11.2005, addressed to the plaintiff, denied its liability to supply “Forms-D” or reimbursement in lieu thereof on the pretext that the plaintiff had failed to supply the material within the stipulated time. This objection was untenable inasmuch as that the issue of supply having been made within the stipulated time had become res judicata between the parties. However, the plaintiff in order to avoid any confrontation, clarified the factual position vide letter dated 7.12.2005. She again reiterated her claim vide letter dated 21.2.2006, but the defendant remained indifferent and arrogant. This objection was untenable inasmuch as that the issue of supply having been made within the stipulated time had become res judicata between the parties. However, the plaintiff in order to avoid any confrontation, clarified the factual position vide letter dated 7.12.2005. She again reiterated her claim vide letter dated 21.2.2006, but the defendant remained indifferent and arrogant. On failure of the defendant to take action for a considerable time, the plaintiff issue legal notice dated 15.6.2006 to the defendant, reiterating her claim. In response to the said notice, the defendant submitted its reply dated 6.9.2006, as also supplied “Forms D” to the plaintiff. 8.After receipt of “Forms-D”, the plaintiff applied to the Sales Tax Authorities, Delhi for reimbursement of the amount deposited by her over and above 4% of the sale value. However, the Sales Tax officer, Ward No.61, Delhi vide letter dated 9.4.2007, returned the original “Forms-D” to the plaintiff, denying the claim for reimbursement on the ground that the forms were not submitted within the period stipulated under Sections 30 and 43 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (in short, the ‘Act’). 9.It is further averred as under vide paras 13 and 14 of the plaint:- “13. That the defendant failed to supply the “D-Forms” to the plaintiff within stipulated time or at least within a reasonable time without any justifiable or reasonable cause. Plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.14,67,764/- over and above 4% towards the sales tax against the supplies made by her to DOT pursuant to purchase order dated 1.12.1999. On refusal of Sales Tax Authorities to refund the above said amount, plaintiff has been put to a loss of said amount without any fault on her part. Plaintiff has suffered a loss of Rs. 14,67,764/- only on account of illegal acts of omissions and commission on part of defendant, therefore, plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement of said amount from defendant. 14. That plaintiff has been put to loss of valuable business money for a long time without any fault on his part, therefore, plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 12% on a sum of Rs.14,67,764/- w.e.f. 23.6.2005 i.e. the date of judgment passed by learned District Judge, Shimla in case No.1-S/02 of 2002. The interest so calculated is Rs.3,51,543/-. 14. That plaintiff has been put to loss of valuable business money for a long time without any fault on his part, therefore, plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 12% on a sum of Rs.14,67,764/- w.e.f. 23.6.2005 i.e. the date of judgment passed by learned District Judge, Shimla in case No.1-S/02 of 2002. The interest so calculated is Rs.3,51,543/-. Plaintiff is thus entitled to suit amount of Rs.14,67,764/- + Rs.3,51,543/-= Rs.18,19,308/- from the defendant.” 10.The suit is contested by the defendant on the following preliminary objections, out of which objection No.2 is, in essence, in the nature of concise written statement on merits:- “1. That the defendant is a body incorporated on 1.10.2000 and the Chief Accounts Officer (equal rank to AGM) in o/o Chief General Manager Telecom, H.P. Circle, SDA Complex, Shimla is competent to file the present written statement on behalf of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. to engage counsel and to sign and verify pleadings etc. 2. That by 25.5.2000, M/s. Shree Nath Industries, New Delhi had completed supplies to BSNL. The said firm did not demand Form D from DOT. On 1.10.2000, BSNL was incorporated. The said firm continued never to demand Form D for several years even thereafter from BSNL. There was Arbitration proceeding and subsequent case before Hon’ble District Judge, Shimla between the parties regarding balance payment, and even during these proceedings the plaintiff never sought nor pressed for Form D all these years. On 21.2.2006, for the first time, plaintiff demanded Form D from BSNL. Matter was verified and processed, as old records of DOT had to be looked into, and Form D was sent to plaintiff on 6.9.06. Thereafter, plaintiff alleges that she applied for refund from Delhi sales tax authorities, who rejected her application on the ground that the forms were not submitted within period stipulated in Sections 30 and 43 of Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975. It is submitted that plaintiff is herself responsible for delay, as she never demanded Form D from DOT or from defendant all these years until 21.2.2006; and time of twelve months mentioned in Section 30 of Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 had long since expired several years ago when she ultimately demanded Form D from defendant on 21.2.2006. It is submitted that plaintiff is herself responsible for delay, as she never demanded Form D from DOT or from defendant all these years until 21.2.2006; and time of twelve months mentioned in Section 30 of Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 had long since expired several years ago when she ultimately demanded Form D from defendant on 21.2.2006. Hence, plaintiff herself is responsible for delay and she is legally and factually not entitled to have any reimbursement from defendant of the sales tax that she deposited with Delhi sales tax authorities.” 11.On merits, it is admitted that the plaintiff was engaged in the aforesaid business. Insofar as the averments regarding supply of tubes and arbitral proceedings are concerned, the same also stand admitted either specifically or by necessary implication. The concise written statement in the nature of the aforesaid preliminary objection No.2 is further reiterated in the written statement on merits. On these averments, the claim of the plaintiff for recovery of the suit amount is refuted on behalf of the defendants. 12.On the above pleadings, the parties have gone to trial on the following issues:- 1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit amount including interest as claimed? OPP. 2.Whether the defendant was bound to supply ‘Forms D’ to the plaintiff, if so, its effect? OPP. 3.Whether there was any delay on the part of the plaintiff in demanding ‘Forms -D’ from the defendant? OPP. 4. Relief. 13.A bare perusal of issue No.3 would go to show that onus to prove this issue appears to have been inadvertently cast upon the plaintiff instead of the defendant. Accordingly, onus to prove this issue is re-cast upon the defendant. 14.For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, my findings on above issues are as under:- Issue No.1. No. Issue No.2. No. Issue No.3. Yes. Issue No.4. Suit dismissed, per operative part of the judgment. Reasons for finding Issues No.1 to 3. 15.All these issues are taken up together for discussion and decision, as these require common appreciation of facts and law. 16.The controversy between the parties lies within a narrow compass. Firstly, whereas according to the plaintiff, it was the duty of the defendant to supply “Forms-D”, according to the defendant, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to apply for it. Secondly, according to the plaintiff, in any case, she had applied to the defendant for supply of “Forms-D” in writing on 16.9.2002. Firstly, whereas according to the plaintiff, it was the duty of the defendant to supply “Forms-D”, according to the defendant, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to apply for it. Secondly, according to the plaintiff, in any case, she had applied to the defendant for supply of “Forms-D” in writing on 16.9.2002. Per contra, according to the defendant, the request for supply of “Forms- D” was made by the plaintiff for the first time only on 21.2.2006. 17.Firstly, the dispute between the parties concerns interpretation of clause 8.3 of Section III of the tender document, Ext.PW.2/A, which reads as under:- “(i) (a) The purchaser will provide Form-D/C wherever required for purchases made against this tender for availing Sales Tax concessions. (b) Any increase in taxes and other statutory duties/levies after the expiry of the delivery date shall be the contractor’s account. However, benefit of any decrease in these taxes/duties shall be passed on to the Purchaser by the supplier. (ii) No payment will be paid for goods rejected at the site of testing”. 18.Now while taking the first conscientious issue between the parties as regards interpretation of clause 8.3, particularly sub clause (i) (a) thereof, it would be seen that the terminology used therein is that “the purchaser will provide Form-D/C” (emphasis supplied), meaning thereby that though it was the duty of the purchaser, that is, the defendant to provide “Forms-D”, yet it would not mean that the defendant was to provide such forms to the plaintiff suo moto and instead it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to apply for the same to the defendant “wherever required for purchases made against this tender for availing sales tax concessions”, (emphasis supplied). In the given context, no other meaning can be attributed to this part of clause 8.3 in view of settled principles of interpretation of statutes, which need not be reiterated once again. 19.Now while adverting to the second conscientious issue between the parties, whether there was delay on the part of the plaintiff in demanding “Forms-D’ from the defendants, suffice it to say that except the self-serving bald statement made by the plaintiff’s husband and special power of attorney, PW.2 Sh. Mukesh Chawla, that “we were insisting that the defendant should supply ‘D’ Forms. Mukesh Chawla, that “we were insisting that the defendant should supply ‘D’ Forms. This request was being made to them right from the day when the first supply was made”, there is no other legally admissible evidence to this effect and instead the only document on record is copy of letter dated 6.9.2002, Mark ‘X’. However, the defendant has brought on record letter dated 16.9.2002, Ext.DW.1/B, whereunder the plaintiff had supplied the requisite documents, such as the original certificate issued by the Sales Tax Authority showing the details of supplies/central sales tax deposited and three supplementary bills of additional central sales tax claim, to the defendant with a request to release the central sales tax amount. Though, there is no mention about supply of “Forms-D” in letter Ext.DW.1/B, yet even in case this letter or for that matter letter dated 6.9.2002, Mark ‘X’ is taken to be a letter of request for supply of “Forms-D” submitted by the plaintiff to the defendant, the plaintiff cannot derive any benefit out of it, as the requisite time limit of twelve months for submission of claim for refund of sales tax to the concerned authority, to be reckoned from the date of order, that is, 1.12.1999, had already lapsed much earlier in terms of sub section (3) of Section 30 of the Act, which reads as under:- “(3) No claim for refund under sub-section (1) shall be allowed unless it is made within a period of twelve months from the date of the order giving rise to a claim for such refund, and the Commissioner shall, except as otherwise provided in the Act, refund any amount which become due to the dealer in the prescribed manner: Provided that the Commissioner may allow a claim for refund to be made after the expiry of the said period but not later than twelve months from such expiry, if he is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not making such claim within that period.” 20.The cumulative effect of the above discussion on issues No.1 to 3, is that the defendant was not bound to supply “Forms-D” to the plaintiff and instead it was for the plaintiff to have applied for the same and since there was delay on her part to do so, she is not entitled to the suit amount including interest as claimed. Accordingly, whereas issues No.1 and 2 are held in negative, issue No.3 is answered in affirmative. Issue No.4. 21.In the result, the suit fails and is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, as prayed for, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to seek her remedy, if any, by way of appropriate proceedings before the concerned sales tax authorities, in accordance with law, in the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of A.P. and others vs. M/s Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Production Ltd. and others, (1994) 5 Supreme Court Cases 100 (para 13) and Hon’ble Madras High Court in J.B. Leather Fertilizers and Company vs. Deputy Commercial Tax officer, Vellore (Rural), 2002-(126)-STC-0038-MAD (W.P. Nos.9905 and W.M.P. No.14089 of 1999, decided on September 7, 2001) (operative para).