9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Authority, by which Section 9 Application filed by the Appellant was rejected on the ground of pre-existing dispute. 2. Brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding the Appeal are : (i) An Agreement dated 05.04.2017 was entered between the Appellant and the Corporate Debtor for supervision and assistance in handling and dispatch of CCL Coal at Tori Siding. The Appellant for financial year 2017-18 raised six invoices and for the financial year 2018-19 raised further invoices. (ii) The Appellant's case was that although TDS was deducted, but he has not received the full payment as per invoices. By letter dated 22.02.2021, the Appellant demanded outstanding principal amount of Rs.3,93,92,131/-. The Corporate Debtor replied to the ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he receipt of Demand Notice has brought into the notice of Operational Creditor regarding demurrages imposed by the Principal Employer. Following have been noticed by the Adjudicating Authority in paragraph 9.5, which is as follows : "9.5 Coming to the merits of the instant case, the Operational Creditor has claimed that such correspondences were never communicated to the Operational Creditor before the legal notice was issued by it. There is no record to contradict the same. Be that as it may, it is clear to us from the letter dated 22nd April which was issued by the Operational Creditor as a reply to the Corporate Debtor's reply dated 11.02.2021, that the Corporate Debtor had brought to the notice of the Operational Creditor, the di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our notice vide Ref.RFT(P)L/21-22/l3 Dated: 22/04/2021 Dear Sir, My above client received your above referred letter and handed over to me to give a reply and under the instruction and on behalf of my named-client, I hereby give you this reply as follows:- You have sent the above mentioned reply letter to my client wherein you have arbitrarily and irrationally refused to pay my client's legitimate claim mentioned in my client's letter dated 11/02/2021. That my client issued a work order on 05/04/2017 in continuance of the service order which had been awarded to your Company since 2015-16 for supervision and assistance in handling and dispatch of CCL coal from Tori siding and the work order was issued as a subcontract to your ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence on your part in performance of the assigned job. That as mentioned in your letter in Para 9 my client would like to state, that is a general practice in system that the input tax credit of the GST amount is availed initially on the basis of the bill raised by the supplier of the goods and services and the TDS is also deducted and deposited on the basis of provisional bill only till the actual settlement of the accounts, which can be reversed by issuing the debit note/ credit note after settlement of the accounts, which can be reversed by issuing the debit note/ credit note after settlement of accounts. For not setting the accounts since last five years, my client is supposed to issue the debit note for the penalty amount of the unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut when my client found that was enough scope for deduction of the penal amount in future. But when my client found that the process of reconciliation of amount was been continuously deferred by you, my client started holding the amount from FY 2017-18. However, in order to continue the job of loading and dispatches from Tori siding, my client had to ultimately release some advance amount even after adjustment of the penalties of railway. That my client absolutely refuses your claim of Rs.3.94 Crores and also on Contrary you are requested to complete the necessary reconciliation of the accounts as early as possible, so as to settle the disputes over the differences in books and to initiate for the refund amount of Rs.1,47,97,381/- which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te and the Operational Creditor has not settled the accounts for last five years for under-loading and overloading and demurrage charges debited by principal borrower, as Operational Creditor was required to adjust the amount. Thus, deduction under Section 194(C) cannot lead to conclusion that Corporate Debtor acknowledged the liability to pay the entire bills of the Operational Creditor. The dispute was raised by the Corporate Debtor, which is reflected in the letter dated 11.02.2021 referred by Appellant himself in his letter dated 22.04.2021 as well as the reply dated 13.06.2021. We have already extracted the averments made in the reply dated 13.06.2021 above, which clearly indicate pre-existing dispute raised by the Corporate Debtor muc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
