Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
Cross country pipeline classification and ITC entitlement: pipelines outside factory treated as immovable, ITC disallowed under Section 17 restriction...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6261 to 6280 of 96257 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A pre-existing dispute must be real, substantial and linked to the debt claimed; a later plea of non-supply, raised only before the Adjudicating Authority and not in reply to the demand notice, was treated as an afterthought and did not defeat the Section 9 application. A franchise dispute involving a separate proprietorship concern of the same proprietor was held to be independent of the invoice debt, so it could not constitute a pre-existing dispute for that claim. The tribunal also held that a proprietorship concern is not barred from invoking the Code, and that a demand notice may validly be issued through an authorised advocate. On that basis, the rejection of the Section 9 application was set aside and the matter remanded.
A pre-existing dispute must be real, substantial and linked to the debt claimed; a later plea of non-supply, raised only before the Adjudicating Authority and not in reply to the demand notice, was treated as an afterthought and did not defeat the Section 9 application. A franchise dispute involving a separate proprietorship concern of the same proprietor was held to be independent of the invoice debt, so it could not constitute a pre-existing dispute for that claim. The tribunal also held that a proprietorship concern is not barred from invoking the Code, and that a demand notice may validly be issued through an authorised advocate. On that basis, the rejection of the Section 9 application was set aside and the matter remanded.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.