<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Tribunal Denies Section 9 Application Due to Pre-existing Dispute Over Work Completion and Payment Refunds.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=75312</link>
    <description>Rejection of section 9 application filed by the Appellant - pre-existing dispute - The NCLAT determined that the email communication constituted a clear dispute regarding the completion of the work and the refund of excess payments. - The tribunal rejected the Appellant&#039;s argument that the dispute was baseless or a &quot;moonshine&quot; defense, stating that the allegations made in the email were substantial and warranted consideration. - The NCLAT observed that while the issue of excess input tax taken by the Corporate Debtor could not be addressed under Section 9 of the Code, the Appellant could pursue remedies available under the contract for any dues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2024 07:31:49 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2024 07:31:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=745339" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Tribunal Denies Section 9 Application Due to Pre-existing Dispute Over Work Completion and Payment Refunds.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=75312</link>
      <description>Rejection of section 9 application filed by the Appellant - pre-existing dispute - The NCLAT determined that the email communication constituted a clear dispute regarding the completion of the work and the refund of excess payments. - The tribunal rejected the Appellant&#039;s argument that the dispute was baseless or a &quot;moonshine&quot; defense, stating that the allegations made in the email were substantial and warranted consideration. - The NCLAT observed that while the issue of excess input tax taken by the Corporate Debtor could not be addressed under Section 9 of the Code, the Appellant could pursue remedies available under the contract for any dues.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2024 07:31:49 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=75312</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>