TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1308
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioner supplied goods as per the instructions of the respondent Company. It is also pleaded that the petitioner firm filed its return before the VAT authorities depicting the sales and purchases. The petitioner has a running account with the respondent. In March 2012, an amount of Rs. 54,28,124/- stood pending from the respondent Company which got reduced to Rs. 42,78,124/- in March 2013. On 13.02.2014, the respondent Company made part payment of Rs. 7,20,000/-. It is pleaded that an amount of Rs. 35,58,124/- still remains payable. A legal notice was sent on 24.02.2014. As there was no response, the present winding up petitioner has been filed. 3. The respondent filed their reply. In their reply, they have denied the ledger account of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which are said to be disputed by the respondent being Exs.564 and 573 are for a total sum of Rs. 29 lakhs (approximately) whereas the outstanding dues are of Rs. 35.58 lakhs. Hence even assuming the respondent are correct, an amount of Rs. 7 lakhs (approximately) still remains due and payable to the petitioner. 6. The first plea of the petitioner that the submissions of the petitioner in the winding up petition have gone unrebutted in the reply is not correct. A perusal of the reply would show that the respondent has denied the Statement of Accounts/alleged dues as claimed by the petitioner. In fact apart from various other paras in paragraph 6(b) of the reply it is categorically denied that the petitioner has supplied material for five ye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....if there are any interpolations or whether the interpolations are in a different ink or whether the accounts are in the form of a book with continuous page-numbering. Hence, if the original books have not been produced, it is not possible to know whether the entries relating to payment of rent are entries made in the regular course of business." 8. Hence, it would be for the petitioner to prove his books of accounts before he can claim the payments from the respondents. 9. The next plea raised by the petitioner related to the VAT amount which is said to have been claimed by the respondent. I have perused the return filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the Form VAT 07A which is filed by the respondent Company for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....harge of that liability? In such a situation, is there not a duty on the Company Court to examine whether the company has a genuine dispute to the claimed debt? A dispute would be substantial and genuine if it is bona fide and not spurious, speculative, illusory or misconceived. The Company Court, at that stage, is not expected to hold a full trial of the matter. It must decide whether the grounds appear to be substantial. The grounds of dispute, of course, must not consist of some ingenious mask invented to deprive a creditor of a just and honest entitlement and must not be a mere wrangle. It is settled law that if the creditor's debt is bona fide disputed on substantial grounds, the court should dismiss the petition and leave the cred....