TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 879
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... invoices and the petitioner on 27.11.2012 received a part payment of Rs.1,60,000/- vide a cheque leaving the principle balance outstanding of Rs.5,17,723/-. It is alleged that vide its correspondence dated 25.10.2013 the petitioner had requested the respondent to pay the balance amount and that in its e-mail dated 09.12.2013 the officials of the respondent rather admitted a sum of Rs.5,17,723/- is payable to the petitioner as per their books of account and had even issued the C-form under the provisions of Sales Tax Act having distinctive No.1330326 covering all the invoices raised for the supplies made by the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that by 21.01.2013 and 21.03.2013 all the goods were supplied and installed as per the specifica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rks "good job done!" Further C-Form (Annexure-O) issued by the respondent bear its rubber stamp and signature of its authorized signatory admitting the details of all invoices raised and the goods received, per such invoices. Further in an e-mail dated 09.12.2013 (Annexure N) the respondent admitted its outstanding balance due to the petitioner to be Rs.5,17,723/-. Numerous e-mails were then sent (Annexure N colly) which were never replied and lastly the statutory notice dated 28.03.2015 was sent and in response thereof the respondent sent an e-mail dated 13.04.2015 (Annexure Z) wherein though it did not deny the receipt of the goods; its installation/ commissioning and/or the outstanding but rather stated that promoters are out of the coun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er. 5. Thus, it is a case where the goods were installed/ commissioned to the satisfaction of the respondent but it neglected to pay the petitioner, despite admitting its liability in its email dated 09.12.2013. The reply/ correspondence show that only an apprehension was raised about the quality of plastic after a year of installation/commissioning but that too was attended to. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent primarily relies upon Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 to claim its right to inspect the goods in reasonable time. However in Lohmann Rausher Gmbh v. Medisphere Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 117(2004) DLT 95 the court observed : "41. Buyer's right of examining the goods.- (1) Where goods are delivered to the buyer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and 42 of the Sale of Goods Act." 7. Thus, where the goods were installed and commissioned to the satisfaction of the respondent on 21.01.2013 and on 21.03.2013 and where the respondent admitted its liability on 9.12.2013 (Annexure N) but raised only an apprehension after a year of installation which was also attended to, though beyond the scope of the contract and where the respondent rather appreciated the work of the petitioner then its plea per Section 41 that it could not inspect the goods, within a reasonable period of its installation, makes no sense. The facts reveal the respondent is raising this frivolous issue after a year of receiving demand letters and is trying to wriggle out of its liability & thus have neglected to pay wit....