Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
A Section 9 IBC application cannot be admitted where the record shows a genuine and plausible pre-existing dispute before the demand notice. Applying Mobilox and later decisions, the Court held that the adjudicating authority at this stage only examines whether a plausible contention requiring investigation exists, not the ultimate merits of the dispute. Written complaints about defective supplies, repeated demands for reconciliation of accounts, a prior police complaint, discrepancies in ledger accounts, and shifting stands on the amount due showed no consensus on liability or quantum and indicated more than a sham defence. The NCLT had correctly rejected the application, and the NCLAT was wrong to reverse that finding.
A Section 9 IBC application cannot be admitted where the record shows a genuine and plausible pre-existing dispute before the demand notice. Applying Mobilox and later decisions, the Court held that the adjudicating authority at this stage only examines whether a plausible contention requiring investigation exists, not the ultimate merits of the dispute. Written complaints about defective supplies, repeated demands for reconciliation of accounts, a prior police complaint, discrepancies in ledger accounts, and shifting stands on the amount due showed no consensus on liability or quantum and indicated more than a sham defence. The NCLT had correctly rejected the application, and the NCLAT was wrong to reverse that finding.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.