9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly moonshine defence cannot be accepted. Averments made in the email raises clear dispute which cannot be said to be moonshine. As per the submission of the Appellant that Corporate Debtor has taken input on the tax invoice sent by the Appellant. It is on record that advance payments were made by the Corporate Debtor and issues whether input tax taken is in excess is the issue which could not be gone into in proceeding under Section 9 of the Code. It is observed that it shall be open for the Appellant to take such remedy as available under the contract if there are any dues. Appeal dismissed. - [ Justice Ashok Bhushan ] Chairperson , [ Barun Mitra ] Member ( Technical ) And [ Arun Baroka ] Member ( Technical ) For the Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Appellant and perused the record. 6. The email dated 11th July, 2022 has been brought on record by the Appellant as Annexure A-15. It is useful to extract the said email which contains the allegations made by the Corporate Debtor which is as follows: To, The Manager ZMRA Interior Sub: Request to refund advance money paid against interior work after a genuine computation in purview of your commitment. Sir, It is necessary to write and remind you that the job work given to your company for all interior work of our showroom of Maruti at Gaya is not completely done by you. However, we have paid regular advance on your request against the interior job work agreed to be done. It is to be noted that the agr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest. Now, you must agree that you have never visited in the year 2022 to see the work or to guide the work into our site. So, how you have raised a bill in June, 2022. You have just left the work in between on our own. And it's true that the whole work in 2022 into our showroom were done without your help and guidance, but it was supposed to be done by you. And all older work done by you were corrected by us with our own correction cost. And thereafter most of the pending work were duly done by us with our own employed inputs and services. Because, the partial work done by you was of very poor quality. it was not as per your commitment and suitable for our showroom. So, now we want to say that, when the work was not done as per commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... place of your work and services but in purview of your committed contract work plan. 7. When we look into the email dated 11th July, 2022 which was issued much prior to issuance of demand notice it is clear that dispute was raised in the said email regarding completion of the work by the Appellant. Allegations have been made in the email that excess amount has been paid to the Appellant and email also says that excess amount should be refunded. The submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that work was completed in March, 2021 and email sent was only moonshine defence cannot be accepted. Averments made in the email raises clear dispute which cannot be said to be moonshine. As per the submission of the Appellant that Corpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
