TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (12) TMI 272
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of the respondent on June 23, 1972. Petitioner No. 1 and the respondent continued to have business transactions till January 14, 1976, on which date the credit-debit balance was struck and it was found that the respondent was liable to pay Rs. 10,168 to the petitioners. A notice of demand was sent to the respondent on March 30, 1978, calling upon it to pay the amount of Rs. 10,168.80 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date the amount fell due, within 7 days of the receipt of the notice, failing which legal proceedings shall be initiated against it. The respondent company, in its reply to the notice sent, vide letter dated April 14, 1978, admitted that a sum of Rs. 10,000 was due to petitioner No. 1, but it claimed that since the declaration in Form C was not supplied by petitioner No. 1 as required under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, it was entitled to deduct excess sales tax. The respondent company deducted an amount of Rs. 5,269.35 out of the amount due and remitted the balance amount of Rs. 4,730.65 through cheque to the petitioner-company. The petitioners had claimed a sum of Rs. 18,099 inclusive of interest in this petition. The respondent, in its wri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the learned company judge, vide order dated July 11, 1986, and the following question of law was referred for adjudication : "Whether the relevant date to determine whether the petition under section 446(2) of the Companies Act is barred or not would be the date on which the winding up order was passed or the date on which the petition under the said section was moved ?" The Bench, vide order dated February 4, 1988, answered the question thus (at page 316 of 66 Comp Cas) : "In view of our above observations, we are of the considered view that the period of limitation for an application making a claim under section 446(2) of the Act on behalf of the company, which is being wound up, shall commence from the date of the winding up order and the period from the date of commencement of the winding up of the company to the date the winding up order is made, both inclusive, and a period of one year immediately following the date of winding up shall be excluded in computing the period of three years provided by article 137 of the Limitation Act." In view of the authoritative decision by the Bench, issue No. 4 is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m. The respondent waited for the declaration in Form C from Maruti Limited for quite some time and sent them reminders, verbal as well as in writing, but did not receive the same. Finally, when the respondents were not supplied with the required declaration in Form C, they were left with no alternative but to adjust the tax liability of Rs. 5,269.35 and send the balance amount of Rs. 4,730.65 to Maruti Limited, vide letter dated April 14, 1978, attached with the petition as annexure P. 5 and made a full and final settlement of accounts between the parties. This amount of Rs. 5,269.35 had to be paid against additional demand made by the concerned assessing authority with regard to the above-referred bills. The reminders for sending the declaration in Form C, correct statement of accounts between the parties and the assessment orders for the years 1974-75 and 1975-76 are at present not available with the respondent and will be placed on the record at a later stage. Under the circumstances, the respondent was justified in adjusting the said amount from the running account of Maruti Limited with the respondent." Para 5 of the replication : "That the contents of para 5 of the writ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ections (1) and (2) of section 643 of the Act, framed rules cited as the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (for short, "the Rules"). Clause (4) of rule 2 defines the term "Code" as meaning the Code of Civil Procedure. Rule 6 ibid provides that, save as otherwise provided by the Code or by these Rules, the practice and procedure of the court and the provisions of the Code so far as applicable shall apply to all proceedings under the Act and these Rules. The proceedings under the Act will be regulated by the procedure prescribed under the Code save as otherwise expressly provided. Rule 6 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the defendant's claim to set off any demand in suit for an ascertained sum of money legally recoverable. In the absence of any contrary provision, the provisions of rule 6 of Order 8 of the Code will be attracted. The defendant/respondent is entitled to claim set off in a suit for recovery of an ascertained sum of money filed against it, provided both the parties fill the same character and the amount claimed by way of set-off does not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the court and the suit is for a certain sum of money legally rec....