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 rejection of the section 9 application for alleged non-service of the demand notice was sustainable when the operational creditor claimed service by registered post and email, and whether the creditor ought to have been afforded an opportunity to meet the objection before dismissal.
Analysis: The demand notice under section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 serves to put the corporate debtor on notice of the default and the proposed insolvency action. Service sent to the email address reflected in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs master data was treated as sufficient for the purpose of notice. The dismissal of the section 9 application was found unsustainable because the objection regarding proof of service was acted upon without giving the operational creditor an opportunity to substantiate service, particularly when the respondent had remained ex parte.
Conclusion: The rejection order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision after granting the appellant an opportunity to establish service of the demand notice.
Ratio Decidendi: A section 9 application cannot be rejected on an untested objection as to service of demand notice when the operational creditor was not given a fair opportunity to establish compliance with section 8 and the notice was sent to the official email address reflected in the corporate records.