Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Vicarious liability for dishonoured company cheques may extend to non-signatory directors where complaints contain foundational responsibility avermen...
A Section 9 insolvency application was rejected because the record disclosed a genuine pre-existing dispute between the parties. The corporate debtor had, before the demand notice, complained of defective consignments, including rusting and non-conformity with specifications, sought replacement, and rejected the goods; the operational creditor's own emails acknowledging quality deficiency and offering compensation reinforced that the dispute was real. The tribunal held that the adjudicating authority need only see whether the dispute is a plausible contention requiring further investigation, not a patently feeble defence. It also held that issues on CFR INCOTERMS and Sale of Goods Act remedies were outside summary insolvency jurisdiction, and the rejection of the application was affirmed.
A Section 9 insolvency application was rejected because the record disclosed a genuine pre-existing dispute between the parties. The corporate debtor had, before the demand notice, complained of defective consignments, including rusting and non-conformity with specifications, sought replacement, and rejected the goods; the operational creditor's own emails acknowledging quality deficiency and offering compensation reinforced that the dispute was real. The tribunal held that the adjudicating authority need only see whether the dispute is a plausible contention requiring further investigation, not a patently feeble defence. It also held that issues on CFR INCOTERMS and Sale of Goods Act remedies were outside summary insolvency jurisdiction, and the rejection of the application was affirmed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
