9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the petitioning-creditor is for refund of advance made against promised supply of goods. The parties agreed that the petitioner would obtain 1700 MT of iron ore fines from the company against a total payment of Rs. 33 lakh. The petitioner made the payment in two tranches of Rs. 25 lakh and Rs.8 lakh by December 13, 2011 and the company confirmed to the petitioner by its letter of December 23, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... produced no evidence in support of its assertion that the reply to the statutory notice was received by advocate who had issued the notice on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner has denied service of such notice on advocate representing the petitioner. Assuming that the notice was not served on advocate representing the petitioner, however, the substance of the defence indicated in the noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any has offered to pay a sum of Rs. 1,58,400/- to the petitioner provided the C forms are furnished by the petitioner to the company. The petitioner says that since the petitioner was to export the goods, no sales tax C form was liable to be furnished by it to the company. The petitioner says that the tenor of the company's letter of December 23, 2011 indicated that the sum of Rs. 33 lakh reflect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter has to be assessed. In any event, there is also a defence of the company that the value of the goods sold to the petitioner was of Rs. 31.04 lakh and not of the lesser amount attributed by the petitioner. Notwithstanding the impression that the defence may ultimately be found to be wanting, a creditor's petition is not admitted on impressions, and the company here must be afforded a chanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
