TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 924
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the petitioner had supplied certain dyes from time to time to the respondent company who is engaged in the business of, inter alia, dying yarn for its customers. Accordingly, the petitioner is claiming that a sum of Rs. 5,60,562/- is due and payable by the respondent. Since the respondent was disputing that the said amount was due and payable, the petitioner sent a notice under Section 434 (1) (a) demanding the said amount. The notice sent by the petitioner was duly replied to and the respondent has disputed that any amount is payable to the petitioner. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 2. There is no dispute that the petitioner supplied the goods as claimed to the respondent company. It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the petitioner that the debit note raised by the respondent was raised on account of the amount claimed by the respondent and the petitioner had received the same at the material time. However, the petitioner states that the petitioner did not accept the debit of the said amount and the petitioner disputes that the dyes supplied were defective or not of the requisite quality. It is further contended that the yarn dyed by the respondent had lost colour on account of faulty work on their part and not on account any defect in the material supplied by the petitioner. 4. This dispute was, admittedly, raised by the respondent prior to the petitioner issuing the notice under Section 434(1)(a). The respondent has also placed documents which, pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e said decision is wholly inapplicable to the facts of the present case. In that case the amounts payable by the respondent to the petitioner were acknowledged. Admittedly, the income tax on the said amount had been deducted at source and there was no dispute with respect to the same. The petitioner had disputed the receipt of the debit note which was relied upon by the respondent in that case. In the given facts it was apparent that the said debit note represented a feeble attempt on the part of the respondent to dispute the debt where, in fact, no dispute existed. In these circumstances it was held that the mere issuance of debit note would not be sufficient to dispute the debt and it was held that the defence raised by the respondent was....