Judgment : Debangsu Basak, J. The plaintiff sought to recover the balance of price of goods sold and delivered from the defendants along with amount in lieu of sales tax declaration forms and interest. The Defendant No. 2 filed written statement and contested the suit. In the written statement it was claimed that, the husband of the Defendant No. 2 used to look after the affairs and business of the Defendant No. 1. The business of the Defendant No. 1 was closed in 1994. The plaintiff disclosed documents. The plaintiff produced one witness and the Defendant No. 2 produced her husband as her witness. On behalf of the plaintiff it was contended that, goods were sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendants on credit. The defendants used to issue post dated cheques in favour of the plaintiff to secure such payment. The plaintiff charged concessional sales tax on the undertaking of the defendant to provide sales tax declaration forms for the transactions. The Defendant No. 1 failed and neglected to provide such sales tax declaration forms and also failed to pay the sales tax amount payable in lieu of the sales tax declaration forms. The plaintiff relied upon various documents being offer cum delivery orders, various correspondences and a statement of account. On behalf of the defendant it was contended that, the claim was barred by the laws of limitation. A period of 3 years elapsed since the last transaction on January 5, 1993 till the filing of the instant suit on July 16, 1996. It was also claimed that, the plaintiff did not take steps for service of writ of summons on the defendants. Since a large period of time elapsed between the date of filing of the suit till the service of summons the defendants lost possession of all documents. As the witness of the Defendant No. 2, the husband of the Defendant No. 2 claimed that, the business of the Defendant No. 1 was closed in 1996 and that prior to closer they paid all the creditors of the defendants. The husband of the Defendant No. 2 claimed that, he was now a retired businessman living out of rental income. On merits, the transactions between the parties were admitted. The husband of the Defendant No. 2 claimed that, he was now a retired businessman living out of rental income. On merits, the transactions between the parties were admitted. It was suggested on behalf of the defendants that, the payments shown to be outstanding were actually squared up and no amount was due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff. However, due to the passage of time the defendants did not have any documents to establish such claim. On the point of limitation, on behalf of the plaintiff it was submitted that, the plaintiff was an undertaking of the Government of West Bengal. The same was pleaded in the plaint. It was not denied in the written statement. Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as applicable in the State of West Bengal was relied upon. Under Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the period of limitation was 30 years. Reliance was also placed on 2001 Volume 3 Calcutta Law Times page 315 (West Bengal Agro Industries v. Union of India) in support of such contention that Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was applicable. I have considered the pleadings of the respective parties, the evidence adduced by the parties and the rival contentions. The suit was for recovery of balance of price of goods sold and delivered, amount in lieu of sales tax declaration forms and interest. Exhibit ‘H’ was a statement of account. The price of goods covered by the transactions between the parties was reflected in the statement of account. The entries in the statement of account were made out of the delivery vouchers and the debit vouchers. The defendant did not establish that, any of the entries made in the Exhibit ‘H’ were incorrect. A sum of Rs.4,82,953.81p. was due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff as on March 31, 1996 in accordance with Exhibit ‘H’. This sum included interest and claim on account of amount in lieu of sales tax declaration forms. A principal sum of Rs.2,25,060/- was due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff as on January 5, 1993 being the date of the last bill. Nothing was shown by the defendant to dispute such figure. The contention of the defendant that, all amounts due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff was squared up was not established by way of evidence. Nothing was shown by the defendant to dispute such figure. The contention of the defendant that, all amounts due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff was squared up was not established by way of evidence. No document was produced in support of such contention. Such contention of the defendant presupposed the validity of the transactions and the entries made at Exhibit ‘H’. The defendant was contending that, the amounts were squared up without any evidence to the contrary. In my view the plaintiff established its claim of Rs.2,25,060/-. The defendant, apart from the claim that the account stood squared off by payment, could not disprove the claim of the plaintiff by way of any documentary evidence. On the point of limitation it must be said that Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was attracted. The West Bengal amendment to Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963 added the following words to the existing Article “Of a Government Company owned wholly either by the Central Government or by the State Government or jointly by the Central and the State Government.” In the cause title as well as in paragraph 1 of the plaint the plaintiff described itself as a Government of West Bengal undertaking. This averment of the plaintiff was not denied by the Defendant No. 2 in its written statement. In the written statement the Defendant No. 2 denied the entirety of every statement made in the plaint save and except this averment. In West Bengal Agro Industries (supra) this Hon’ble Court was considering a suit on behalf of a Government Company. It was held in the facts of that case that the plaintiff was a Government Company and that Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was attracted. In the facts and circumstances I hold Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is attracted since the plaintiff is a Government Company of the State of West Bengal. The defence of the Defendant No. 2 disclosed in the written statement was utterly dishonest. In page 7 paragraph 16 of the written statement it was claimed that, the business of the Defendant No. 1 was closed since 1994 in evidence the husband of the Defendant No. 2 stated it was closed since 1996. The written statement was verified by the Defendant No. 2 who was the sole proprietress of the Defendant No. 1. In page 7 paragraph 16 of the written statement it was claimed that, the business of the Defendant No. 1 was closed since 1994 in evidence the husband of the Defendant No. 2 stated it was closed since 1996. The written statement was verified by the Defendant No. 2 who was the sole proprietress of the Defendant No. 1. The defendants had transactions till at least January 5, 1993 when the defendants took delivery of material on credit. The Defendant No. 2 proceeded to deny each and every statement made in the plaint save and except the averment with regard to the plaintiff being an undertaking of the Government of West Bengal. In the oral evidence the husband of the Defendant No. 2 admitted that, there were transactions between the parties. This admission was not reflected in the written statement. A dishonest stand was taken in the written statement. The Defendant No. 2 was the sole proprietress of the Defendant No. 1. The liability of the Defendant No. 2 was coextensive that of the Defendant No. 1 as the sole proprietress of the Defendant No. 1. The plaintiff claimed interest at the rate of 15.8% per annum. The nature of transactions between the parties was commercial. The plaintiff had in fact raised bills for interest on the defendants which remained unpaid. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case I am inclined to allow interest at the rate of 15% per annum to the plaintiff on and from January 5, 1993 being the date of the last bill till realization. I am conscious of the principle of Damdupat. The plaintiff was an undertaking of the Government of West Bengal. The plaintiff had 30 years to file the suit. The plaintiff filed the instant suit within 4 years. The plaintiff took all steps possible to realize money due to it from the defendants. The defendants had wrongfully not paid the plaintiff. The defendants retained with themselves money lawfully payable to a Government of West Bengal undertaking. Therefore, the rate of interest in the facts and circumstances of the instant case was warranted. The defence of the defendant that due to the passage of time the defendant lost the documents to establish that, all amounts were paid by the defendants to the plaintiff did not impress me. The suit was within the period of limitation. Therefore, the rate of interest in the facts and circumstances of the instant case was warranted. The defence of the defendant that due to the passage of time the defendant lost the documents to establish that, all amounts were paid by the defendants to the plaintiff did not impress me. The suit was within the period of limitation. In law, therefore, the defendants were required to retain all documents to disapprove the claim during the period of limitation. The defendants could not produce any document to deny the claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- against the defendants on account of damages. This claim according to me, was not established by the plaintiff. The basis for the claim was not established by way of evidence. I, therefore, disallow such claim. The plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs.37,730.93p. on account of arrears of sales tax. The plaintiff charged concessional rates of sales tax on transactions relying on the assurance of the defendants that they provide the relevant sales tax declaration forms. Nothing was produced by the defendants to establish that they discharged such obligation. The plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to such claim. In the premises there will be a decree for a sum of Rs.2,25,060/-and Rs.37,730.93p. aggregating to Rs.2,62,790.93p. against the defendants jointly and severally together with interest at the rate of 15% per annum on and from January 5, 1993 until realization. So far as costs of the suit were concerned, I am of the view that the defendants took a dishonest defence in the written statement. The plaintiff will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as costs. C.S. No. 192 of 1996 is decreed accordingly. Department will draw up and complete and issue certified copy of the decree as expeditiously as possible.