Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
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...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
