9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the Corporate Debtor on verbal purchase orders and raised many invoices and an outstanding amount of Rs. 4,76,154 is due since 28.6.2018 along with interest @ 24% p.a. and applicable taxes for payment. He has alleged that the Corporate Debtor failed to issue C Form, as the sale was done against 'C' Form, and further, amount including taxes and interest and penalty are also due to be paid to the appellant/operational creditor by the corporate debtor. The Appellant has further stated that since no payment of the due amount was forthcoming from the corporate debtor, notice under section 8 of IBC was issued to the corporate debtor through his (operational creditor's) legal counsel on 13.7.2018 and the corporate debtor replied to the Section 8 notice vide letter dated 16.8.2018 denying the demand made in the said notice and, inter alia, raising the issue of defect in quality of the supplied goods for the first time. In addition, the appellant has stated that the corporate debtor mentioned about the debit note in his reply for the first time. This debit note, the appellant has claimed was neither signed by the corporate debtor nor it contained necessary particulars about GST number, PA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el for Appellant has referred to a sample debit note, issued to another party by the Appellant (attached at pg. 275 of the appeal paperbook), wherein the date, GSTIN/UIN number, GST amount, details of bill by which the sale was initially made and the Company PAN number are stated clearly, and which contains the signature of the party issuing the debit note. He has referred to section 34 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 which stipulates how credit/debit notes are issued including their format. He has also referred to Rule 53 (1A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which contains details of particulars to be included in legally-valid debit notes. He has further argued that the debit note has to be issued in the same financial year in which the goods were returned on account of defect in quality, whereas in the present case, the debit note is sent for the first time on 22.5.2018, whereas the sale took place in the year 2016. Furthermore, he has argued that no goods were ever returned to the operational creditor in connection with the purported debit note. He has stated that the debit note shown to have been sent by the corporate debtor vide e-mail dated 22.5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or services or both shall declare the details of such debit note in the return for the month during which such debit note has been issued and the tax liability shall be adjusted in such manner as may be prescribed. Explanation.--For the purposes of this Act, the expression "debit note" shall include a supplementary invoice." Rule 53(1A) of the Central GST Rules, 2017 " 53(1A) A credit or debit note referred to in section 34 shall contain the following particulars, namely:- (a) name, address and Goods and Services Tax Identification Number of the supplier; (b) nature of the document; (c) a consecutive serial number not exceeding sixteen characters, in one or multiple series, containing alphabets or numerals or special characters-hyphen or dash and slash symbolised as "-" and "/" respectively, and any combination thereof, unique for a financial year; (d) date of issue of the document; (e) name, address and Goods and Services Tax Identification Number or Unique Identity Number, if registered, of the recipient; (f) name and address of the recipient and the address of delivery, along with the name of State and its code, if such recipient is un-registered; (g) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect in quality and it was only 2 years later in 2018 that the purported debit note was raised. 7. The paragraph 7 of the Impugned Order dated 22.1.2020 (attached at pp.38-44 of the appeal paperbook) is as follows:- "7. The corporate debtor vide reply dated 16.08.2018, raised the dispute with respect to quality of goods and also stated that the said issues of quality was informed to the applicant. The corporate debtor further stated that due to the said dispute they had raised various debit notes and the same were sent to the applicant vide email dated 02.07.2018, 05.09.2018 and 05.12.2018, including one to the advocate for the applicant company." In oral arguments the Learned Counsel of Appellant has stated that while the Impugned Order mentions that the fact about existence of dispute and various debit notes were sent to the Applicant (Appellant) vide e-mail dated 2.7.2018, 5.9.2018 and 5.12.2018, this claim is not supported by any document placed on record by the respondent before the Adjudicating Authority. The only documents presented by the respondent in the form of copies of e-mails dated 2.7.2018, 5.9.2015 and 5.12.2018 are actually emails which have been sent by Mr. Nit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
