<?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>Section 9 application maintainable where alleged pre-existing quality dispute not established; contractual sampling and testing found valid</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91911</link>
    <description>NCLAT held the Section 9 application maintainable. The Tribunal found the alleged pre-existing dispute on goods&#039; quality was not established so as to attract Section 10A exclusion, since samples were drawn per the contractually prescribed procedure and testing was to be undertaken at the supplier&#039;s designated lab (or third-party) notwithstanding the Respondent&#039;s contrary assertion. The onus lay on the Respondent to appoint a representative at sampling; absence of such representation did not vitiate the sampling or testing process. Clause 4 established the supplied coal fell outside acceptable calorific parameters, supporting the Applicant&#039;s claim. Consequently, interlocutory remedy under Section 9 was held competent to proceed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2025 08:41:04 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2025 08:41:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=845847" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Section 9 application maintainable where alleged pre-existing quality dispute not established; contractual sampling and testing found valid</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91911</link>
      <description>NCLAT held the Section 9 application maintainable. The Tribunal found the alleged pre-existing dispute on goods&#039; quality was not established so as to attract Section 10A exclusion, since samples were drawn per the contractually prescribed procedure and testing was to be undertaken at the supplier&#039;s designated lab (or third-party) notwithstanding the Respondent&#039;s contrary assertion. The onus lay on the Respondent to appoint a representative at sampling; absence of such representation did not vitiate the sampling or testing process. Clause 4 established the supplied coal fell outside acceptable calorific parameters, supporting the Applicant&#039;s claim. Consequently, interlocutory remedy under Section 9 was held competent to proceed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2025 08:41:04 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91911</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>