Summary Judgment granted where defendant fails to prove delivery of goods despite admitted receipt of payment.

The Plaintiff, an electronic goods trader, filed a suit for recovery of ₹4,23,34,250/-

Following an investment proposal by Defendants No. 2 and 3, the Plaintiff transferred ₹3 crores via RTGS on February 19, 2022, to the bank account of Defendant No. 1 (Proprietor of M/s AT Gold Enterprises)

Defendant No. 1 admitted receipt of the funds but claimed the amount was an advance for mobile screens supplied to the Plaintiff through Defendant No. 2, evidenced by six invoices totalling ₹2,72,40,392/-

Defendant No. 1 further contended that the Plaintiff’s availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) served as an admission of delivery

The Plaintiff moved an application under Order XIII-A of the CPC for summary judgment, asserting that no physical delivery of goods occurred and that the ITC was subsequently reversed

Whether the defendant has any real prospect of successfully defending the claim or if there is a compelling reason to proceed to trial under Order XIII-A of the CPC

Whether the issuance of tax invoices, e-way bills, and the initial availment of Input Tax Credit constitute conclusive proof of delivery of goods

The court applied Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as applicable to commercial disputes), which permits summary judgment where a party has "no real prospect of successfully defending the claim"

It relied on the precedent Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. v. Kunwer Sachdev, which established that a full trial is not the default procedure if the court can reach a fair determination on merits at the summary stage

Regarding the delivery of goods, the court considered Section 16(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, which stipulates that ITC can only be taken upon the actual receipt of goods

The court found that while Defendant No. 1 admitted to receiving ₹3 crores, he failed to produce any objective evidence of delivery, such as transporter’s receipts, delivery challans, or freight invoices

The e-way bills were deemed insufficient as they contained incomplete addresses

Regarding the CGST Act, the court reasoned that while Section 16(2)(b) links ITC to receipt of goods, the Plaintiff’s reversal of the ITC neutralized its value as an admission of delivery

The court noted contradictions in the defense: Defendant No. 1 claimed delivery to Defendant No. 2, yet the invoices were in the Plaintiff's name

Consequently, the court determined that the defense was a mere moonshine and that no "genuine issue" required a trial

The suit was decreed against Defendant No. 1 for the principal sum of ₹3 crores

Additionally, the court granted interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing until realization

The Registry was directed to draw up the decree sheet accordingly