9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. & Ors. pending before the learned ACMM, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, and the proceedings arising therefrom. 2. Briefly, the facts as averred in the present petition are that petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company which is engaged in the business of, inter-alia, construction, civil work, interior work, fabrication, erection, installation of furniture and fit outs and other related services, etc. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are stated to be its Directors. For the sake of convenience, any reference to 'petitioner' hereinafter shall collectively refer to petitioner Nos. 1 to 4. 3. The petitioner had availed services of the respondent against a total consideration of Rs. 1,98,74,358/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety-Eight Lakhs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all clear statutory charges/taxes. Clause 10 of the aforesaid agreement reads as under :- "10. That I agree to settle all Income tax, Vat, GST, and all applicable taxes on my own after receipt of my dues and balance payments from the company and that amounts in relation to service tax payments amounting to Rs. 23,84,944 by Chq No. 006610 of HDFC Bank Dated 27.01.2018 shall be released to me by Scoop Brand Holdings Pvt. Ltd. upon me having fulfilled service tax compliances and adducing evidences on behalf of the same to Scoop Brand Holdings Pvt. Ltd. in this regard". 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that as the respondent failed to deposit the statutory dues as undertaken vide Clause 10 of the agreement, an emai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory dues, it has been specifically averred as under:- "3. That our client tried to contact you over the phone, but you have intentionally avoided our client and mischievously and intentionally sent a letter dated 16.02.2018 to our client falsely alleging that the service tax deposit return was not submitted in terms of agreement/understanding dated NIL knowing fully well that our client had already fulfilled the service tax compliance in terms of the said agreement/understanding and the challans were duly supplied to you from time to time, and finally the service tax returns along with all the challans were supplied to your office on 06.02.2018 by our client. However, our client is once more submitting the said Service Tax Challans and Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shbhai Muljibhai Patel and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another reported as (2020) 3 SCC 794, the Supreme Court has observed that when disputed questions of facts are involved, which need to be adjudicated after the parties adduce evidence, the High Court ought not to exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings arising out of Section 138 NI Act. 14. To a similar extent are the observations of the Supreme Court in Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported as 2021 SCC OnLine SC 580, wherein it has been reiterated that appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 15. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
