9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity was justified in admitting the Application filed by the Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the Code? - HELD THAT:- The material on record evidences that the Corporate Debtor deposited TDS of ₹ 4,12,000/- which is the TDS on the entire amount of the Invoice of ₹ 2,06,00,000/-. It is not disputed that the Operational Creditor deposited the GST of ₹ 37,08,000/- on the entire amount of the Invoice in favour of the Corporate Debtor and the benefit of the said amount as input amount has been taken by the Corporate Debtor . A perusal of the Invoices evidences that the Tax Invoice was raised in favour of the Corporate Debtor and not on M/s. Cox Kings. It is significant to mention that the part payment was al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Respondent No. 5 : Mr.Pulkitesh Tiwari, Ms. Bency Ramakrishnan Mr. Akash Menon, Advocates for R-5. For the Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Advocate for R-6. JUDGEMENT ( Per : Shreesha Merla, Member (T) ) 1. This Appeal is filed by the Suspended Director of M/s. Grades Entertainment Private Limited/ the Corporate Debtor under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (hereinafter referred to as The Code ), being aggrieved by the Impugned Order dated 15/02/2022 passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench) in C.P. (IB) No. 953/ND/2020, wherein the Learned Adjudicating Authority has admitted the Section 9 Application filed by M/s. Paras Art St ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s directly to M/s. Cox Kings and their role was only of an accounting and payment mechanism to raise Invoices in the name of the Corporate Debtor and therefore never incurred any debt , in terms of the provisions of Section 3(11) of the Code. Learned Counsel drew our attention to the purchase Order dated 15/01/2019 issued by M/s. Cox Kings. Thereafter on 31/01/2019, M/s. Cox Kings appointed the Corporate Debtor as its authorised payment agent to receive and disburse the amounts, as per instructions, the Corporate Debtor had released four payments. 4. Learned Counsel argued that the Operational Creditor is a direct service provider to M/s. Cox Kings and also filed its claim with the IRP on 17/01/2020. It is also submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of M/s. Cox Kings. For better understanding of the role of the Appellant and the first Respondent, the Tax Invoice dated 21/01/2019 is reproduced as hereunder: 7. The aforenoted Tax Invoice shows that the payment was made to the account of the Operational Creditor by the Corporate Debtor . The material on record evidences that the Corporate Debtor deposited TDS of ₹ 4,12,000/- which is the TDS on the entire amount of the Invoice of ₹ 2,06,00,000/-. It is not disputed that the Operational Creditor deposited the GST of ₹ 37,08,000/- on the entire amount of the Invoice in favour of the Corporate Debtor and the benefit of the said amount as input amount has been taken by the Corporate Debtor . A perusal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
