TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Application to Initiate Corporate Insolvency Process Rejected Due to Genuine Dispute on VAT Liability</h1> <h3>M/s Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (India) Ltd. Versus M/s Instrumentation Limited</h3> M/s Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (India) Ltd. Versus M/s Instrumentation Limited - Tmi Issues Involved:1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP)2. Existence of Operational Debt and Default3. Dispute Regarding VAT Liability4. Interest Claim on Principal Amount5. Settlement Negotiations and One-Time Settlement OfferDetailed Analysis:1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP):The 'Operational Creditor,' M/s Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (India) Ltd., filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the 'Corporate Debtor,' M/s Instrumentation Limited. The application included a demand notice and a proposal for an Interim Resolution Professional, Advocate Ashok Kumar Juneja.2. Existence of Operational Debt and Default:The Operational Creditor claimed a total debt of Rs. 4.90 crores as the principal amount and Rs. 2,62,55,270 towards interest, supported by invoices dated 20.12.2011, 25.04.2013, and 22.07.2013. The Corporate Debtor acknowledged an amount of Rs. 5.40 crores in a letter dated 29.01.2014, but attributed the delay in payment to delays in receiving funds from government agencies.3. Dispute Regarding VAT Liability:A significant dispute arose concerning a VAT demand notice of Rs. 8,56,35,646 issued by the Government of Maharashtra Sales Tax Department. The Corporate Debtor claimed that the Operational Creditor was liable for Rs. 7,58,23,371 of this amount and requested the Operational Creditor to deposit this sum. The Operational Creditor contested this liability, arguing that the work was performed offshore and thus not subject to Maharashtra VAT.4. Interest Claim on Principal Amount:The Corporate Debtor argued that there was no written or oral agreement regarding the payment of interest on the principal amount. Consequently, the claim for interest by the Operational Creditor was deemed baseless by the Corporate Debtor.5. Settlement Negotiations and One-Time Settlement Offer:Settlement negotiations took place, resulting in a one-time settlement offer of Rs. 3,25,00,000 by the Corporate Debtor, conditional upon resolving the VAT liability and withdrawal of the case filed by the Operational Creditor. The Operational Creditor denied liability towards VAT and pointed out that the Corporate Debtor itself had not considered VAT liability in its contract with ONGC.Judgment:The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Mobilox Innovative (P.) Ltd. v. Kirusa Software (P.) Ltd., emphasizing that the existence of a genuine dispute requires the adjudicating authority to reject the application. Given the disputes over VAT liability and interest claims, the Tribunal concluded that a 'dispute' existed between the parties regarding the amount claimed. Therefore, the petition was rejected. The Tribunal clarified that its observations should not prejudice the Applicants' rights before any other forum.
TaxTMI 