Thus, the plaintiff chose, according to her approach, not to sell the goods that she claimed were ordered for the defendant as opposed to the goods of other customers that were sold, and it was not clarified why the defendant's goods could not be sold and those of other customers could not be sold. The claim that it was a sold commodity was claimed casually and is inconsistent with the conduct of the plaintiff who canceled the invoices in respect of it, as it became clear later.
In these circumstances, and in the absence of any evidence attesting to the quantity of the products in the warehouse, if any, and the value and crises that the goods were not supplied to the defendant and the plaintiff continues to hold on to them and did nothing to reduce her damages, the amount of the claim was not sufficiently clarified.
- The main evidence from the plaintiff's point of view to prove the existence of the transaction and, as a result, the existence of the claimed debt, is the invoices.
According to the plaintiff, the fact that the defendant submitted the invoices for that transaction to the tax authorities and was credited for them, indicates that the defendant recognized the existence of the transaction and hence its liability.
With regard to these claims, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff had issued fictitious invoices for goods that had not been delivered to her, created a vague picture, and finally canceled the invoices in the amount of approximately ILS 2,050,947.43 in July 2017. The defendant also claimed that the plaintiff's cancellation of the transaction was expressed in the plaintiff's notice of cancellation of the transaction dated January 30, 2017 - in which an agreement was attached to the cancellation of the transaction with details of the original invoices, which were never sent to the defendant and were discovered only retroactively upon cancellation to the defendant's fax (Appendix C to the amended objection). She also claimed that at the beginning of March 2017 she contacted the tax authorities to cancel the invoices and pay tax in accordance with her real income, and indeed the request to amend her reports for the years 2015-2016 was submitted.
- The defendant did not dispute that input tax was deducted in respect of the invoices issued by the plaintiff in respect of this transaction, but even declared that she did indeed deduct input tax and confirmed in her testimony at the hearing of the objection at least in connection with the check in the sum of ILS 1.6 million that she had indeed been credited in real time with input taxes in respect of the transaction (in the transcript of March 28, 2018, pp. 2, paras. 22-27). However, the defendant subsequently returned the appellant to the tax authorities on the grounds that the transaction had been canceled.
When the defendant was asked in her testimony whether she refused in real time to cancel the transaction on these checks and other checks on the grounds that she could not refund the appellant taxes that had already been offset on him, she confirmed that indeed in one of the meetings that took place (about three or four months before the cancellation of this transaction) she said that she could not continue to have the transactions canceled and that she would pay the VAT. Afterwards, she said that she also asked by phone to cancel the checks and transactions, and that she did not want so much merchandise and wanted to end contact with them. She also testified that she did not receive so much merchandise, perhaps in several thousand dollars (in the transcript at pp. 3, paras. 12-24).
- The plaintiff admitted that the sum of ILS 279,981 should be deducted from the sum of ILS 1.6 million in taxes that she received back from the tax appellate authorities, as claimed in the sum of ILS 279,981 (the amount as she stated in her summaries).
When Mr. Meisler was asked why the plaintiff did not cancel the invoices in light of the circumstances that arose, Mr. Meisler replied that there was such an attempt in real time before serious damages were caused and the defendant was only asked for the cancellation to sign a form, but she did not sign (in the transcript, pp. 33, paras. 15-24).