TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1400
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lvency Resolution Process ("CIRP" in short). Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant-Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor. 2. Coming to the brief facts of the case, a Section 9 petition was filed by M/s Riddhi Siddhi Metals-Operational Creditor seeking initiation of CIRP against M/s Aquarius H2O Dynamics Pvt. Ltd.-Corporate Debtor for an outstanding debt of Rs. 1,16,40,233/- including Rs. 15,19,753/- as interest as of 15.03.2024. As part of their business transactions, the Corporate Debtor accepted the goods of the Operational Creditor without dispute and had made partial payment but had failed to clear the entire outstanding dues. The Operational Creditor therefore sent a Section 8 IBC demand notice to the Corporate Debtor on 19.03.2024. When the matter came up for hearing before the Adjudicating Authority, even though notice was issued on 12.07.2024, the Corporate Debtor had failed to appear. Due to non-appearance of the Corporate Debtor even after issue of publication of notice in newspapers, the Adjudicating Authority closed the reply rights of the Corporate Debtor and subsequently admitted the Section 9 petition ex-parte. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iolated thereby making the order liable to be set aside. 4. Refuting the contentions of the Appellant, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that they had supplied goods and services to the Corporate Debtor and raised corresponding tax invoices. The Corporate Debtor had accepted the goods without any demur and made partial payments without disputing the quality or quantity of goods supplied. The default by the Corporate Debtor is clearly recorded with the NeSL. The ledger accounts and GST records also substantiate the outstanding dues. It is further contended by the Respondent that the payments which have been claimed to have been made by the Corporate Debtor were not payments made by the Corporate Debtor. The purported payment of Rs 9.50 lakhs claimed to have been made by the Corporate Debtor was made by a different entity other than the Appellant and this payment related to a transaction separate from transactions entered into with the Corporate Debtor. It was also pointed out that their bank statement clearly reveals that some of the payments which were claimed to have been made by Mr. Chirag Patel-suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor was actually made by a person ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Annexure-R-1 from pages 7-9 of their Rejoinder Reply. 9. When we peruse the above-mentioned Bank Account Statement of the Operational Creditor, we find that a payment of Rs 9.50 lakhs has been made to the Operational Creditor by Shreeji Equipments on 11.10.2023 as placed at page 7 of the Reply Rejoinder by the Respondent. At page 8 of the said statement, we also notice that five payments of Rs 50,000/- each, aggregating Rs 2.50 lakhs, has been made on 10.11.2023 by one Mr. Simon Kumar Patel. Further, another payment of Rs 1 lakh by Shri Rameshbhai Patel dated 31.01.2024 is reflected at page 9 of the Reply Rejoinder. 10. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent however denied that the amount of Rs 9.50 lakhs received by the Operational Creditor from Shreeji Equipment was payment on behalf of the Corporate Debtor. It was stated that Shreeji Equipment was a sister concern of the Corporate Debtor. Hence, this amount cannot be treated as payment by the Corporate Debtor. Moreover, this payment was made for certain purchase orders which were given by Shreeji Equipment which were independent of the business transactions between the Corporate Debtor and Operational Creditor and therefore has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
[email protected] WWW.RIDDHISIDDHIMETAL.IN Shreeji equipments and systems Ledger Account THIRD FLOOR, 306, SURYASH GATEWAY, Science City Road, Sal Institute of Technology and Engineering Research, Sola, AHMEDABAD 1-Jan-22 to 1-Mar-25 Page 1 Date Particulars Vch Type Vch No. Debit Credit 26-Sep-23 Cr SALES GOODS GST SALES 87 2,80,082.00 11-Oct-23 Dr HDFC BANK Receipt 93 9,50,000.00 10-Nov-23 Dr PATEL SIMON KUMAR Journal 9 50,000.00 Dr PATEL SIMON KUMAR Journal 10 50,000.00 Dr PATEL SIMON KUMAR Journal 11 50,000.00 Dr PATEL SIMON KUMAR Journal 12 50,000.00 Dr PATEL SIMON KUMAR Journal 13 50,000.00 16-Dec-23 Dr PATEL DHARAM KUMAR Journal 14 30,000.00 31-Jan-24 Dr RAMESH BHAI PATEL Journal 15 1,00,000.00 2,80,082.00 13,30,000.00 Cr Closing Balance 10,49,918.00 13,30,000.00 13,30,000.00 When asked to explain as to why the payments made by Simon Kumar Patel and Rameshbhai Patel have been reflected in the Ledger Account of Shreeji Equ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Dr HDFC BANK Receipt 266 10,00.000.00 1,25,52,443.00 87,00,000.00 Dr Closing Balance 38,52,443.00 1,25,52,443.00 1,25,52,443.00 1-Apr-23 Cr Opening Balance 38,52,443.00 26-Apr-23 Cr SALES GOODS GST SALES 20 18,06,521.00 27-Apr-23 Dr HDFC BANK Receipt 11 6,00,000.00 29-Apr-23 Cr SALES GOODS GST SALES 21 18.57,851.00 9-May-23 Cr SALES GOODS GST SALES 24 14,18,714.00 12-May-23 Cr SALES GOODS GST SALES 29 17,84,951.00 1,07.20,480.00 6,00,000.00 Dr Closing Balance 1,01,20,480.00 1,07,20,480.00 1,07,20,480.00 There is a clear mis-match between the Ledger Account of the Corporate Debtor as submitted by the Respondent in their Reply Affidavit at Annexure-R-4 and their own Bank Statement Account submitted in their Reply Rejoinder at Annexure-R-1. 15. From the material placed before us, we are inclined to agree with the Appellant that the entire payments made by them to the Operation....