Stamping of Invoices Does Not Imply Acceptance of Debt: NCLAT [Read Order]

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench has held that mere stamping of tax/proforma invoices at the site office by lower functionaries of the corporate debtor only indicates receipt and does not imply acceptance by the corporate debtor.

Uttarakhand HC Criticizes GST Dept. for Arbitrary Action Against Businesses Prior to Issuance of SCN [Read Order]

Uranium Corporation of India Ltd (UCIL) hired Sadbhav Engineering Limited (Corporate Debtor) to conduct operations at the Banduhurang Opencast Mines in Jamshedpur. Tirupati Drilling & Mining Services Private Limited, the appellant and operational creditor, was then given a work order by the corporate debtor to drill at the site. The order was initially valid for a year but was later extended until March 31, 2020.

The Corporate Debtor disputed claims and made unfounded accusations instead of releasing the Operational Creditor's unpaid balance despite reminders. The Corporate Debtor then received a Demand Notice from the Operational Creditor in accordance with Section 8 of the Code. The Operational Creditor submitted an application under Sections 8 and 9 of the Code since there was no sign of a resolution. However, due to pre-existing disagreements between the parties, the Adjudicating Authority (AA) rejected the application.

Calcutta HC allows Concessional Rate of Duty on Interstate Sale [Read Order]

The Appellant argued that the Respondent's communications did not constitute "notice of dispute." The Respondent's vague claims of culpability were illusory, phony, and moonshine. Furthermore, it was argued that the ingredients needed to start the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in relation to the Respondent were adequately and completely proven and satisfied, and that there were no outstanding disputes between the parties before the Demand Notice was issued on December 31, 2021.

Stay Updated with the Latest Audit Report Formats & Audit Trials Requirements! Click here

In contrast, the Respondent argued that the Corporate Debtor had repeatedly disputed the amount before the Petitioner issued the Demand Notice on December 31, 2021. Finally, it was argued that there is an existing disagreement between the parties over the amount in question. The fact that the Operational Creditor made a false, incorrect, or inflated claim or amount says a lot about their behavior. As a result, the current petition should be denied.

Income Tax SCN on Variations Issued without  Providing time to respond: Calcutta HC Grants time to All India Trinamool Congress [Read Order]

The Tribunal bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) viewed  that the amount owed by the Respondent is the subject of a disagreement that has been brought up several times before the demand notice of December 31, 2021, and has not been settled. The Tribunal noted that there is a disagreement on the amount in the facts and circumstances of this matter, which predates the appellant's demand notice of December 31, 2021.

In rejecting the appeal, it was decided that the respondent had recorded the existence of a disagreement in accordance with Section 8(2)(a) of the Code. After discovering a notice of an existing dispute, the AA has not accepted the Section 9 Application in accordance with Section 9(5).

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates