Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the operational creditor's application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was maintainable in view of a pre-existing dispute regarding the quantum of debt and the quality and performance of supplies.
Analysis: The Corporate Debtor had, before the demand notice, raised disputes regarding reconciliation of accounts, the existence of the claimed amount, delays in supplies, defective goods, non-supply of materials, and non-compliance with contractual obligations. The record showed contemporaneous communications predating the demand notice that substantiated these objections. The later arbitration applications did not alter the position, as they were initiated after the demand notice and therefore could not themselves create the pre-existing dispute. The communication of 24.04.2020 did not amount to an unambiguous admission of liability or extinguish the earlier disputes. Applying the settled test for a real dispute, the defence was found to be supported by material and not a mere sham.
Conclusion: The Section 9 application was rightly rejected because a pre-existing dispute existed before issuance of the demand notice, and the appeal failed.