per the agreement, the petitioners ought to have returned the advance amount of Rs.17,50,000/- on 12.10.2013 itself. In reply to the notice issued by the respondent through their counsel on 07.11.2013 calling upon the petitioners to refund the said amount of Rs.17,50,000/-, the petitioner in their reply dated 30.11.2013 stated that a sum of Rs.10,03,631/- is payable by them after deducting alleged payment of service tax and electricity charges. Even though the respondent agreed to receive the said sum under protest, the petitioners did not pay the said sum. Earlier lease agreement expired due to lapse of time and only the lease deed dated 01.04.2013 was in force and the respondent terminated the said agreement by giving three months notice dated 11.07.2013 and vacated and handed over the possession to the petitioners on 12.10.2013. The respondent has not suppressed any material facts. Whether the respondent is liable to pay service tax or not can be decided only by the evidence let in by the parties during trial. Thiru.K.A.Antony is the Joint Zonal Manager, who is the Principal Officer of the respondent and as per C.P.C., he is entitled to verify the plaint on behalf of the respondent. The learned Judge has set
