TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 176
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The petitioner issued five invoices, being No. HSC/60 dated 6th July, 2012, No. HSC/101 dated 24th August, 2012, No. HSC/169 dated 17th October, 2012, No. HSC/181 dated 5th November, 2012 and No. HSC/194 dated 23rd November, 2012 to the company for a sum of Rs. 43, 46, 245.00 on account of price of the said goods and Value Added Tax, at the rate of 4% of the price of the said goods. The said invoices together with the relevant challans forwarded by the petitioner were received by the company. In the application the petitioner has disclosed the copies of the said five invoices and the relevant challans. The petitioner raised the said invoices dated July 6, 2012, August 24, 2012, October 17, 2012, November 5, 2012 and November 23, 2012 upon the company for Rs. 9,63,895/-, Rs. 7,89,806/-, Rs. 9,30,387/-, Rs. 4,72,871/- and Rs. 11,89,286/-, respectively. The particulars of the said invoices have also been mentioned in a schedule, being Annexure "B" to the application. The petitioner claims that it was agreed between the parties the payment of the said invoices would made by the company within 30 days from the date of receipt of each invoice, failing which the company was liable to pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....13 and July 30, 2013 they paid Rs. 5, 00,000/- and Rs. 3, 89,806/- to the petitioner towards price of 20% of the said goods. Since the petitioner failed to replace the inferior quality goods, the company assessed the value of 20% goods utilised by it and made further payment of Rs. 5, 00,000/- to the petitioner on November 12, 2013. By a letter dated November 12, 2013 it informed the petitioner that no further payment in respect of the said goods will be made unless the petitioner replaced the same. In the said letter the company also mentioned the particulars of the payments made to the petitioner on June 13, 2013, July 24, 2013, November 12, 2013 and July 30, 2014 amounting to Rs. 17, 89,806.00/- and denied its liability to make any further payment. The company also enclosed the alleged letters dated September 1, 2012, October 20, 2012, November 26, 2012, December 10, 2012, June 13, 2013, July 27, 2013 and November 12, 2013 each bearing the seal in the name of the petitioner and the signature of a person. By a letter dated September 21, 2015 the petitioner through its Advocate replied to the said letter dated September 7, 2015. In the said letter the petitioner denied the allegat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....GS and that until the said goods of inferior quality is replaced, they will not make any further payment and that they shall also be constrained to take legal measure against the petitioner. The company has claimed that all the letters written by it, copies whereof have been disclosed along with the said reply letter dated September 7, 2015, have been received by the petitioner and the question of any of the said letters being manufactured cannot arise. In his affidavit in reply the petitioner has reiterated the allegations made in the application and asserted that the purported seal of Haryana Steel Corporation appearing in the socalled letters disclosed by the company are forged and are not the seal of Haryana Steel Corporation. He has further alleged that the purported signatures appearing on such letters on the seals are also forged signatures and the same are not signatures of any person known to him. Mr. Shounak Mitra, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioning creditor submitted that in the present case, there is no dispute between the parties either with regard to the quantity of the said goods supplied by the petitioner to the company or with regard to the particula....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitioner's bona fide claim for Rs. 15, 92,544/- on the basis of the said manufactured letters dated September 01, 2012, October 20, 2012, November 26, 2012, December 10, 2012, June 13, 2013, July 27, 2013 and November 12, 2013 do not constitute any bona fide defence. Urging all these grounds, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pressed for admission of the present winding up application against the company. On the other hand, Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing for the company strongly contended that the winding up application filed by the petitioner against the company is devoid of any merit. He submitted that in paragraph 18 of the application, the petitioner has raised the issue as to whether the letters disclosed by the company as enclosure to its reply letter dated September 7, 2015 are manufactured and fabricated and such issue can only be decided by the competent Court in a civil suit after considering the evidence to be adduced by the respective parties. He strenuously contended that each of the said letters dated September 01, 2012, October 20, 2012, November 26, 2012, December 10, 2012, June 13, 2013, July 27, 2013 and November 12, 2013 issued b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../101dated August 24, 2012. The company received the goods as well as the invoice. According to the company, the goods covered by the said invoice no. HSC/101 were of inferior quality and by the letter dated September 01, 2012 it called upon the petitioner to replace the said goods. The petitioner has denied to have received the said letter dated September 01, 2012. Although, the petitioner did not replace the said alleged goods of inferior quality the company placed further order upon the petitioner for supply of the said goods and the latter supplied the same and raised the invoice no. HSC/169 dated October 17, 2012 for Rs. 9, 30,387/-. The company alleged that the even said goods covered by the said invoice no. HSC/169 were of inferior quality and by the alleged letter dated October 20, 2012 it requested the petitioner to replace the said goods covered by the last two invoices. However, once again the company placed fresh order upon the petitioner for supply of the said goods and the latter supplied the same to the former and raised the invoice no. HSC/181 dated November 05, 2012. The company also received the said invoice for Rs. 4, 72,371/-. Thereafter, the company placed furth....