TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (2) TMI 471
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade by the petitioner, and also the agreed rates. After the supplies had been received and accepted by the company, it would appear that under its covering letter dated 30-9-1996 the petitioner had made over to the company the corresponding invoice together with a packing-list, and in acknowledge-ment the company had issued a post-dated cheque, dated 10-10-1996 for a sum of Rs. 8,17,000, which was the entire consideration money. According to the petitioner, the cheque had been dishonoured upon presentation, and by its letter dated 20-11-1996, written to the company, the petitioner demanded payment of its dues and the company by its letter dated 21-1-1997 admitted the claim of the petitioner and requested for time to enable the company to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... all transactions that had taken place between them, and that the alleged dues to the knowledge of the petitioner, had been adjusted with the dues of the company which were payable by the petitioner, and that the same had been recorded in a letter dated 22-8-1997. It was argued by the counsel for the company that any purchase of electrical components which the parties had made from each other, towards supplies to be made to the three alleged buyers, were considered by the parties to be one single transaction, and consequently the company had maintained one single account. According to him on the basis of such understanding, and consequent practice followed by the parties in keeping of accounts, the alleged outstandings of the petitioner whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al, open, current and continuous account had been maintained by the parties in respect to all their transactions relating to supplies which had been made by them to the three alleged buyers, were mere assertions without any base or basis whatsoever. There were no material to substantiate the bald allegations, which appeared to have indeed been made for the first time in the company's reply to the statutory notice of demand. The company had of course by that time aware of the intentions of the petitioners. The company sought to rely on "annexure B" to its affidavit which was a document bearing no semblance of authenticity, and could by no standard be considered to be a commercial communication. There was nothing before this Court which would....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to hold that the company had failed to establish prima facie that there was any jural relationship between the parties with reference to the alleged arrangement of supply to the three alleged buyers and clearly therefore there was, nor could be any, counter-claim of set off by the company against the petitioner in respect to the petitioner's claim. 4. In those circumstances, I would be inclined without any hesitation, to hold that the facts of this case related to a simple commercial transaction of goods sold and delivered, by the petitioner to the company. The terms and conditions of the contract were agreed between the parties, and had been clearly set out in the Purchase-order dated 10-5-1996. The allega- tions made by the company as ....