TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (8) TMI 5
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of dyes and chemicals which were accordingly supplied against invoices; copies of the invoices and C-forms have been annexed along with the petition. Relevant would it be to state that initially a petition had been filed by the petitioner which had been allowed to be amended by a subsequent order dated 09.12.2010. This amendment application had been opposed by the respondent. The Court had recorded that the merits of the contentions raised in the amendment application will be examined at the time of arguments on the main petition. 3 The averments in the amended petition relate to transactions which had been effected in the year 2003-2006 against goods supplied; invoices for a sum of Rs.1,07,615.98 were raised; contention was that it was a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ically averred that the last business transaction took place between the parties on 10.05.2003; no orders were placed thereafter; the transaction of 30.7.2004 and 30.5.2006 was only on a trial basis; the contention of the respondent all along being that these two samples which were sent in the year 2004 and 2006 respectively did not lead to any business dealing between the parties as the samples were not satisfactory. 5 Learned counsel for the respondent points out that there are glaring discrepancies between Annexure-3 and Annexure 3-A which have been filed by the petitioner i.e. the statement of his ledger account filed with un-amended petition and the ledger account which has been filed along with the amended petition. These two documen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....account to be correct after May, 2003 there is one transaction of 30.07.2004 wherein a bill of Rs.14,004/- is raised; this was for 5 Kg of dye (as is evident from the bill); the second transaction dated 15.04.2006 which is after two years is for another meager amount of Rs.3,956/-; both these small amounts depicted in these two later transactions clearly evidence the fact that were these only samples which had been supplied to evaluate whether the said samples of the petitioner had improved over a period of time but not having done so, the said samples were rejected; thus there was no liability owed by the respondent to the petitioner. Transactions in other bills/invoices relate to 150-200 Kg quantities. 7 Legal notice issued by the petiti....