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...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6361 to 6380 of 96365 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 barred admission of the Section 9 insolvency application where the corporate debtor's reply to the demand notice expressly denied liability and disputed the claim amount, and prior correspondence had already recorded defects, delay and deficient performance. Applying the Mobilox test, the Tribunal held that it was enough that the defence disclosed a plausible dispute requiring further adjudication; the Adjudicating Authority was not to decide the merits of the contractual controversy. The dispute was neither moonshine nor illusory, so insolvency could not be used as a substitute for recovery or contractual adjudication. The rejection of the Section 9 application was therefore affirmed, with liberty to pursue other remedies in law.
A pre-existing dispute barred admission of the Section 9 insolvency application where the corporate debtor's reply to the demand notice expressly denied liability and disputed the claim amount, and prior correspondence had already recorded defects, delay and deficient performance. Applying the Mobilox test, the Tribunal held that it was enough that the defence disclosed a plausible dispute requiring further adjudication; the Adjudicating Authority was not to decide the merits of the contractual controversy. The dispute was neither moonshine nor illusory, so insolvency could not be used as a substitute for recovery or contractual adjudication. The rejection of the Section 9 application was therefore affirmed, with liberty to pursue other remedies in law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
