TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 545
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. Ltd. (hereinafter called "Corporate Debtor") alleging that Corporate Debtor committed default on 17.02.2017 in making payment of Rs. 17,74,750/-plus interest @18% p.a., by invoking the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (hereinafter called "Code") read with Rule 5 and 6 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. 2. The Petitioner provided certain consultancy services and claimed project referral fees raising Tax invoice dt 12/01/16 for Rs. 4,58,000, Proforma Invoice dt 23/07/16 for Rs. 4,58,000 and Proforma invoice dt 23/07/16 for Rs. 8,58,750, all amounting to Rs. 17,74,750/-. 3. The Petitioner claimed the amount due from the Corporate Debtor under several emails....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner is admittedly for 'referral fees' for allegedly referring a project to the Corporate Debtor. Thus, the claim of the Petitioner is not an 'operational debt' within the meaning of Section 5(21) of the Code, as the same is not in respect of the provision of any goods or services to the Corporate Debtor. ii. The two alleged invoices dated 23.07.2016 filed by the Petitioner along with the petition appears to be proforma invoices and were never received by the Corporate Debtor at the relevant time and were annexed for the first time by the Petitioner to the demand notice dated 08.08.2017 served upon the Corporate Debtor. iii. The Petitioner raised its claim for 'referral fees' against the Corporate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....15 as well as after receipt of the two demand notices, the Corporate Debtor had always disputed the claim of the Petitioner vide emails dated 13.01.2015, 16.07.2015, 28.12.2015, 15.02.2016, 18.09.2016 and 18.02.2017. Email dated 16.07.2015 is extracted below; a. Email dated 16.07.2015 sent by the Corporate Debtor to the Petitioner; "Dear Amit, First of all there was no commission decided between LAHS & UIL. As per the understanding, we had quoted Rs. 92/Wp for the UIL's 40kW project at Bangalore. The complete responsibility of order collection, pre site visit, project coordination, payment collection, document approval, liaisoning from UIL was under LAHS account. CSPL agreed to this arrangement with LAHS becau....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a call from Mr. Amit Lolekar to cancel the same sighting delay in payment & service tax obligation due to it. I have not received any fresh debit note post cancellation of the earlier debit note. I would request you to issue me a scan as well as a original hard copy immediately to process the payment internaly. Secondly, please note that we are paying this amount as a referral fee (and not as a commission) for this project only. We do not agree to pay any fee or commission to LAHS for any further business that we may do with UIL anywhere in India. Kindly send your acceptance on the above understanding to process your payment. Thank You, With Best Regards, Atul C. Kamathi" c. Email dated ....