ROC Strike-Off Does Not Invalidate Reassessment where S.148 Notice Predates It: ITAT Surat Bench.
Title- Amizara Construction Private Limited vs ITO Surat.
Important - post–Finance Act 2024, the CIT(A) is statutorily empowered to set aside best judgment assessments and remand matters for fresh consideration.
Finance Act, 2024 had inserted a proviso to Section 251(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with effect from 1.10.2024, expressly enlarging the powers of the appellate authority to set aside assessments framed under Section 144 and remand the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat (ITAT) held that reassessment proceedings are not rendered invalid merely because the assessee company’s name was subsequently struck off by the Registrar of Companies (ROC), where the notice under Section 148 had been issued prior to such strike-off.
Amizara Construction Private Limited, the appellant from Surat, challenged separate appellate orders passed for the Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2012-13. The case arose after the AO reopened the assessments based on information relating to substantial cash deposits made in the company’s bank account and issued notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 31.03.2017.
Since no return of income was filed and no satisfactory explanation regarding the source of cash deposits was furnished, the AO completed the assessment under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating the deposits as unexplained income .
Before the first appellate authority, the appellant contended that as the company was non-existent as its name had been struck off from the records of the Registrar of Companies (ROC) on 21.06.2017, and therefore, the assessment itself was invalid. The CIT(A) set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to conduct a fresh assessment after granting due opportunity to the assessee.
The Bench of Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judicial Member, and Bijayananda Pruseth, Accountant Member, upheld the order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal observed that the Finance Act, 2024 had inserted a proviso to Section 251(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with effect from 1.10.2024, expressly enlarging the powers of the appellate authority to set aside assessments framed under Section 144 and remand the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal further noted that the assessee had failed to file any return of income or produce evidence explaining the nature and source of the cash deposits, and that the reopening notice had been issued prior to the striking off of the company’s name.
The Tribunal rejected the assessee’s contention, holding that the plea of non-existence was factually incorrect, as the company was very much in existence on the date of issuance of notice under Section 148. The Bench noted that the ROC strike-off took effect only on 21.06.2017, whereas the reassessment proceedings had already been validly initiated earlier.
light of the statutory amendment and the factual matrix, the ITAT ruled that the CIT(A) had acted within jurisdiction in restoring the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment after granting adequate opportunity to the assessee. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
Compromise Can Reduce Sentence, Not Conviction: Supreme Court Clarifies in Criminal Appeal.
The Supreme Court recently allowed a plea filed by two men seeking reduction of their sentence to the period already undergone in view of a compromise reached with the complainant couple.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Prasanna B Varale, while upholding the conviction of Venkatesh and another, ordered their release after reducing the sentence to the period of two years and three months already undergone by them, out of the five-year jail term imposed earlier.
The appellants had been convicted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, for offences under Section 326 IPC and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992.
Under Section 326 IPC, they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years along with a fine of Rs 5,000 each, and in default of payment, to undergo six more months of rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act, they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs 5,000 each, and in default, to undergo six more months of rigorous imprisonment.
The appellants had challenged their conviction before the Madras High Court. However, by a judgment dated July 7, 2023, the high court dismissed their appeal and directed them to undergo the remaining sentence, while observing that the period of imprisonment already undergone would be set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Supreme Court. Court issued notice to the respondents, limited only to the question of quantum of sentence.
During the hearing, counsel for the appellants submitted that they had already completed two years and three months of incarceration under Section 326 IPC. He urged the court to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone, particularly as a compromise and settlement had been arrived at between the parties. It was also pointed out that the appellants had served nearly half of the sentence imposed on them.
Opposing the plea, the State counsel submitted that there was no merit in the appeal, but left it to the court to pass appropriate orders.
Taking note of the submissions and the facts of the case, the bench observed that out of the five-year sentence imposed on the appellants, they had already completed two years and three months. Court also noted that notice had been issued only on the question of sentence.
Accordingly, while upholding the conviction, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone and directed that the appellants be released forthwith from jail, if they were not required in any other case.
Case Title: Venkatesh & Anr Vs State Represented by The Inspector of Police
GST and Fraud Proceedings Applicability to Statutory Authorities
The Goods and Services Tax (GST) was introduced in India in 2017. It was introduced as a unified tax regime designed to simplify compliance and to promote transparency. Even after a decade of its enactment, it is still in the process of being implemented through litigation.
One of the most important issues that is still under judicial scrutiny is whether statutory authorities and public sector undertakings (PSUs) can be subjected to fraud-based proceedings under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).
The recent writ petition of the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) before the Rajasthan High Court has brought this question into the spotlight.
The case primarily challenges the levy of GST on statutory receipts and contests the jurisdiction of tax authorities to invoke Section 74 against a statutory body. The High Court has admitted the petition and stayed the operation of the impugned notice, setting the stage for a landmark adjudication in April 2026.
Section 74 of the CGST Act: The Core Issue
Section 74 provides for tax authorities to initiate proceedings where tax has been short-paid, not paid, or wrongly availed due to fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts. It is a penal provision. It contains tax liability along with interest and penalties equivalent to the tax amount. In those cases, SCNs must be issued within five years, and orders within five years and six months from the same reference point.
Statutory authorities are government-created entities functioning under legislative mandates, often with transparent accounting and oversight. The controversy arises when such provisions are applied to the same. Critics argue that accusing such bodies of fraud against another statutory authority undermines the principle of governance and accountability.
In the case in hand, the Petitioner is Jaipur Development Authority, a statutory body responsible for urban planning and development and the respondent is the Additional Commissioner, CGST Audit. The argument by the petitioner was that a statutory authority cannot be alleged to have committed fraud against another statutory authority.
Rajasthan High Court admitted the petition and stayed the effect of the Section 74 notice until final adjudication.
This case is significant because it raises the broader question: Can statutory receipts, such as fees, charges, or levies collected by authorities, be treated as taxable supplies under GST, and if so, can fraud provisions apply?
Wider Legal and Policy Debate
1. Applicability of GST to Statutory Receipts Statutory authorities often collect charges like development fees, approval charges, or license fees. Whether these constitute “supply” under GST has been debated since its establishment. Some argue that such receipts are sovereign functions and cannot be considered as commercial transactions.
2. Fraud Allegations Against PSUs and Authorities Legal experts caution against indiscriminate use of Section 74 against PSUs. As one commentary notes, “Stop waving the Section 74 sword at PSUs”, highlighting that fraud provisions were meant for deliberate evasion, not routine compliance disputes.
3. Judicial Trends Courts have increasingly scrutinised the misuse of penal provisions. For instance, the Supreme Court clarified in 2025 that parallel proceedings under GST must be carefully limited to avoid taxpayer harassment in the case of M/S Armour Security (India) Ltd. vs Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Anr
To allege "suppression" by a PSU is, in substance, to claim the State is conspiring against itself. Courts and tribunals have repeatedly signalled this contradiction:
-In disputes involving Steel Authority of India Ltd., the judiciary has been wary of imputing suppression to PSUs absent compelling evidence of intent.
-Oil India Ltd. matters have emphasised that intent to evade cannot be presumed merely because a demand arose; if records are audited and positions are disclosed, intent is missing.
- In cases concerning Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., tribunals have called the routine invocation of extended limitation against PSUs a logical absurdity where facts were in the department's grasp.
Tax Professionals argue that Section 74 should be reserved for clear cases of fraud, not applied mechanically. Policy Analysts stress that governance transparency in PSUs makes fraud allegations illogical. Judicial Observers note that the Rajasthan High Court’s stay signals judicial discomfort with extending penal provisions to statutory authorities.
Risks and Challenges Limiting Section 74’s scope may reduce enforcement leverage for tax authorities, and also, statutory authorities may face uncertainty until a clear judicial precedent is established. Also, Courts must balance revenue interests with principles of fairness and governance.
The Jaipur Development Authority’s challenge has opened a crucial debate on the limits of GST’s penal provisions. The High Court’s final adjudication is in April 2026. If the court rules in favour of JDA, it is likely to restrict the use of Section 74 against statutory authorities. Until then, the case serves as a reminder of the evolving nature of GST litigation and the need for careful statutory interpretation to ensure that India’s “one nation, one tax” framework remains both fair and effective
Focus on your responsibilities and give your best effort, but don't be attached to the success or failure (the "fruits") of your actions; this is the essence of the "You have the right to perform your duty, but not to the fruits of your actions"
Karnataka High Court Quashes Cheque Bounce Case Against Director Who Resigned Before Cheques Were Issued, Cites MCA Records.
The Karnataka High Court quashed a cheque dishonour complaint lodged against a man who was the Director of an infrastructure company, after referring to records of Ministry of Corporate Affairs and noting that when the cheques were issued to the complainant the petitioner was not a director.
Wrong Shareholding Disclosure in Annual Return – MCA imposes Penalty.
The Registrar of Companies, Kolkata passed an adjudication order imposing penalties under Section 454 read with Section 450 of the Companies Act, 2013 for filing an incorrect annual return on the MCA portal.
The case arose from the filing of Form MGT-7 with erroneous particulars, where two bodies corporate forming part of the promoter group were mistakenly disclosed as part of public shareholding.
Although the company admitted the mistake as inadvertent and sought rectification by requesting the form to be marked defective, the Adjudicating Officer held that such administrative correction does not nullify the contravention already completed.
Emphasising that MCA filings constitute public records relied upon by regulators, shareholders, and creditors, the order reiterated that accuracy is assured through Rule 8(3) of the Companies (Registration Offices and Fees) Rules, 2014.
Consequently, penalties of ₹10,000 each were imposed on the company and the authorised signatory, along with directions to rectify the filing and comply within the prescribed timelines .
Company Name - PIYUSH LTD
. Provisions of the Act: If a company or any officer of a company or any other person contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, or any condition, limitation or restriction subject to which any approval, sanction, consent, confirmation, recognition, direction or exemption in relation to any matter has been accorded, given or granted, and for which no penalty or punishment is provided elsewhere in this Act, the company and every officer of the company who is in default or such other person shall be 1[liable to a penalty of ten thousand rupees, and in case of continuing contravention, with a further penalty of one thousand rupees for each day after the first during which the contravention continues, subject to a maximum of two lakh rupees in case of a company and fifty thousand rupees in case of an officer who is in default or any other person]
Whereas as per Rule 8(3) of The Companies (The Registration Offices and Fees) Rules, 2014 states that: – The authorised signatory and the professional, if any, who certify e-form shall be responsible for the correctness of the contents of e-form and correctness of the enclosures attached with the electronic form.
Recently, the Karnataka High Court held that a Sessions Court cannot entertain an appeal against an order of acquittal in bailable offences, as such appeals lie exclusively before the High Court. Setting aside a conviction recorded by the Sessions Court, the Court delivered a sharp reminder on jurisdiction, observing that “an order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity”, and that continuation of such proceedings strikes at the heart of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Rahul Jha Associate Legal
Rahul Jha Associate Legal
ROC Strike-Off Does Not Invalidate Reassessment where S.148 Notice Predates It: ITAT Surat Bench.
Title- Amizara Construction Private Limited vs ITO Surat.
Important - post–Finance Act 2024, the CIT(A) is statutorily empowered to set aside best judgment assessments and remand matters for fresh consideration.
Finance Act, 2024 had inserted a proviso to Section 251(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with effect from 1.10.2024, expressly enlarging the powers of the appellate authority to set aside assessments framed under Section 144 and remand the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat (ITAT) held that reassessment proceedings are not rendered invalid merely because the assessee company’s name was subsequently struck off by the Registrar of Companies (ROC), where the notice under Section 148 had been issued prior to such strike-off.
Amizara Construction Private Limited, the appellant from Surat, challenged separate appellate orders passed for the Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2012-13. The case arose after the AO reopened the assessments based on information relating to substantial cash deposits made in the company’s bank account and issued notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 31.03.2017.
Since no return of income was filed and no satisfactory explanation regarding the source of cash deposits was furnished, the AO completed the assessment under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating the deposits as unexplained income .
Before the first appellate authority, the appellant contended that as the company was non-existent as its name had been struck off from the records of the Registrar of Companies (ROC) on 21.06.2017, and therefore, the assessment itself was invalid. The CIT(A) set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to conduct a fresh assessment after granting due opportunity to the assessee.
The Bench of Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judicial Member, and Bijayananda Pruseth, Accountant Member, upheld the order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal observed that the Finance Act, 2024 had inserted a proviso to Section 251(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with effect from 1.10.2024, expressly enlarging the powers of the appellate authority to set aside assessments framed under Section 144 and remand the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal further noted that the assessee had failed to file any return of income or produce evidence explaining the nature and source of the cash deposits, and that the reopening notice had been issued prior to the striking off of the company’s name.
The Tribunal rejected the assessee’s contention, holding that the plea of non-existence was factually incorrect, as the company was very much in existence on the date of issuance of notice under Section 148. The Bench noted that the ROC strike-off took effect only on 21.06.2017, whereas the reassessment proceedings had already been validly initiated earlier.
light of the statutory amendment and the factual matrix, the ITAT ruled that the CIT(A) had acted within jurisdiction in restoring the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment after granting adequate opportunity to the assessee. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
#incometaxappeal
#incometaxlitigation
#itatsurat.
#companynamestrikedoff.
5 days ago | [YT] | 0
View 0 replies
Rahul Jha Associate Legal
Compromise Can Reduce Sentence, Not Conviction: Supreme Court Clarifies in Criminal Appeal.
The Supreme Court recently allowed a plea filed by two men seeking reduction of their sentence to the period already undergone in view of a compromise reached with the complainant couple.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Prasanna B Varale, while upholding the conviction of Venkatesh and another, ordered their release after reducing the sentence to the period of two years and three months already undergone by them, out of the five-year jail term imposed earlier.
The appellants had been convicted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, for offences under Section 326 IPC and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992.
Under Section 326 IPC, they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years along with a fine of Rs 5,000 each, and in default of payment, to undergo six more months of rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act, they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs 5,000 each, and in default, to undergo six more months of rigorous imprisonment.
The appellants had challenged their conviction before the Madras High Court. However, by a judgment dated July 7, 2023, the high court dismissed their appeal and directed them to undergo the remaining sentence, while observing that the period of imprisonment already undergone would be set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Supreme Court. Court issued notice to the respondents, limited only to the question of quantum of sentence.
During the hearing, counsel for the appellants submitted that they had already completed two years and three months of incarceration under Section 326 IPC. He urged the court to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone, particularly as a compromise and settlement had been arrived at between the parties. It was also pointed out that the appellants had served nearly half of the sentence imposed on them.
Opposing the plea, the State counsel submitted that there was no merit in the appeal, but left it to the court to pass appropriate orders.
Taking note of the submissions and the facts of the case, the bench observed that out of the five-year sentence imposed on the appellants, they had already completed two years and three months. Court also noted that notice had been issued only on the question of sentence.
Accordingly, while upholding the conviction, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone and directed that the appellants be released forthwith from jail, if they were not required in any other case.
Case Title: Venkatesh & Anr Vs State Represented by The Inspector of Police
5 days ago | [YT] | 0
View 0 replies
Rahul Jha Associate Legal
GSTAT Orders Registry 6-Month Leniency in Scrutiny of GST Appeal Filings on Portal.
6 days ago | [YT] | 0
View 0 replies
Rahul Jha Associate Legal
FEMA Advisory & Litigation Servces
FEMA Advisory Includes:
Transaction Structuring: Guidance on structuring FDI, ECB, overseas investments, joint ventures, and technical collaborations.
Regulatory Compliance: Assisting with forms (e.g., FC-GPR, APR), filings with the RBI, and ensuring adherence to FEMA/RBI guidelines.
Reporting & Documentation: Preparation and submission of various regulatory reports and documentation.
Remittances: Advice on funds flow for royalties, technical fees, and general remittances.
Risk Assessment: Identifying potential non-compliance and implementing preventive measures.
FEMA Litigation Includes:
Handling Show-Cause Notices: Responding to notices from authorities like the RBI or ED regarding alleged contraventions.
Penalty & Compounding Proceedings: Managing compounding applications to settle violations.
Representing Clients: Providing legal representation in enforcement proceedings and appeals.
Compliance Audits: Conducting deep dives to find non-compliance issues that could lead to litigation.
Dispute Resolution: Addressing disputes with regulatory bodies or investors related to FEMA issues.
#FEMAadvisory
#femalitigation
www.rahuljhaassociatelegal.com
6 days ago | [YT] | 0
View 0 replies
Rahul Jha Associate Legal
GST Litigation
- ITC Issues , Block ITC and challenge this action
-GST Refund issue- Application & Challenge in court
- Eway bill issue- Allegation of Bogus ITC, Invoice , Fraud
- Assessment- Mismatch in GSTR 2A /GSTR 3B
- Challenges to Search / Seizure
-Penalties & Prosecution
-Compliance issues
-Section 73/ 74/ 74A Notice handling & also Challenge it in Court
- Anticipatory and Regular Bail under GST
- Challenge Recovery Proceedings
- Challenge Show Cause Notice
- Restore of GST registration already cancelled
.- Defence lawyer in Economic offence allegation
- Appeal & Revision-Appeal to First Appellate Authority( All Over India)
- Appeal to GSTAT ( Appellate Tribunal)
- Appeal to High Court
- Appeal to Supreme Court
-Writ Petition
- SLP
1 week ago (edited) | [YT] | 0
View 0 replies
Rahul Jha Associate Legal
GST and Fraud Proceedings Applicability to Statutory Authorities
The Goods and Services Tax (GST) was introduced in India in 2017. It was introduced as a unified tax regime designed to simplify compliance and to promote transparency. Even after a decade of its enactment, it is still in the process of being implemented through litigation.
One of the most important issues that is still under judicial scrutiny is whether statutory authorities and public sector undertakings (PSUs) can be subjected to fraud-based proceedings under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).
The recent writ petition of the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) before the Rajasthan High Court has brought this question into the spotlight.
The case primarily challenges the levy of GST on statutory receipts and contests the jurisdiction of tax authorities to invoke Section 74 against a statutory body. The High Court has admitted the petition and stayed the operation of the impugned notice, setting the stage for a landmark adjudication in April 2026.
Section 74 of the CGST Act: The Core Issue
Section 74 provides for tax authorities to initiate proceedings where tax has been short-paid, not paid, or wrongly availed due to fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts. It is a penal provision. It contains tax liability along with interest and penalties equivalent to the tax amount. In those cases, SCNs must be issued within five years, and orders within five years and six months from the same reference point.
Statutory authorities are government-created entities functioning under legislative mandates, often with transparent accounting and oversight. The controversy arises when such provisions are applied to the same. Critics argue that accusing such bodies of fraud against another statutory authority undermines the principle of governance and accountability.
In the case in hand, the Petitioner is Jaipur Development Authority, a statutory body responsible for urban planning and development and the respondent is the Additional Commissioner, CGST Audit. The argument by the petitioner was that a statutory authority cannot be alleged to have committed fraud against another statutory authority.
Rajasthan High Court admitted the petition and stayed the effect of the Section 74 notice until final adjudication.
This case is significant because it raises the broader question: Can statutory receipts, such as fees, charges, or levies collected by authorities, be treated as taxable supplies under GST, and if so, can fraud provisions apply?
Wider Legal and Policy Debate
1. Applicability of GST to Statutory Receipts Statutory authorities often collect charges like development fees, approval charges, or license fees. Whether these constitute “supply” under GST has been debated since its establishment. Some argue that such receipts are sovereign functions and cannot be considered as commercial transactions.
2. Fraud Allegations Against PSUs and Authorities Legal experts caution against indiscriminate use of Section 74 against PSUs. As one commentary notes, “Stop waving the Section 74 sword at PSUs”, highlighting that fraud provisions were meant for deliberate evasion, not routine compliance disputes.
3. Judicial Trends Courts have increasingly scrutinised the misuse of penal provisions. For instance, the Supreme Court clarified in 2025 that parallel proceedings under GST must be carefully limited to avoid taxpayer harassment in the case of M/S Armour Security (India) Ltd. vs Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Anr
To allege "suppression" by a PSU is, in substance, to claim the State is conspiring against itself. Courts and tribunals have repeatedly signalled this contradiction:
-In disputes involving Steel Authority of India Ltd., the judiciary has been wary of imputing suppression to PSUs absent compelling evidence of intent.
-Oil India Ltd. matters have emphasised that intent to evade cannot be presumed merely because a demand arose; if records are audited and positions are disclosed, intent is missing.
- In cases concerning Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., tribunals have called the routine invocation of extended limitation against PSUs a logical absurdity where facts were in the department's grasp.
Tax Professionals argue that Section 74 should be reserved for clear cases of fraud, not applied mechanically. Policy Analysts stress that governance transparency in PSUs makes fraud allegations illogical. Judicial Observers note that the Rajasthan High Court’s stay signals judicial discomfort with extending penal provisions to statutory authorities.
Risks and Challenges Limiting Section 74’s scope may reduce enforcement leverage for tax authorities, and also, statutory authorities may face uncertainty until a clear judicial precedent is established. Also, Courts must balance revenue interests with principles of fairness and governance.
The Jaipur Development Authority’s challenge has opened a crucial debate on the limits of GST’s penal provisions. The High Court’s final adjudication is in April 2026. If the court rules in favour of JDA, it is likely to restrict the use of Section 74 against statutory authorities. Until then, the case serves as a reminder of the evolving nature of GST litigation and the need for careful statutory interpretation to ensure that India’s “one nation, one tax” framework remains both fair and effective
#gstappeal
#gstlitigation
#section74
#rajasthanhighcourt
rahuljhaassociatelegal.com/
1 week ago | [YT] | 0
View 0 replies
Rahul Jha Associate Legal
Focus on your responsibilities and give your best effort, but don't be attached to the success or failure (the "fruits") of your actions; this is the essence of the "You have the right to perform your duty, but not to the fruits of your actions"
1 week ago | [YT] | 0
View 0 replies
Rahul Jha Associate Legal
Karnataka High Court Quashes Cheque Bounce Case Against Director Who Resigned Before Cheques Were Issued, Cites MCA Records.
The Karnataka High Court quashed a cheque dishonour complaint lodged against a man who was the Director of an infrastructure company, after referring to records of Ministry of Corporate Affairs and noting that when the cheques were issued to the complainant the petitioner was not a director.
#chequedishonour
#chequebounce
#quashchequebouncecomplain
#karnatakahighcourt
www.rahuljhaassociatelegal.com
1 week ago | [YT] | 0
View 0 replies
Rahul Jha Associate Legal
Wrong Shareholding Disclosure in Annual Return – MCA imposes Penalty.
The Registrar of Companies, Kolkata passed an adjudication order imposing penalties under Section 454 read with Section 450 of the Companies Act, 2013 for filing an incorrect annual return on the MCA portal.
The case arose from the filing of Form MGT-7 with erroneous particulars, where two bodies corporate forming part of the promoter group were mistakenly disclosed as part of public shareholding.
Although the company admitted the mistake as inadvertent and sought rectification by requesting the form to be marked defective, the Adjudicating Officer held that such administrative correction does not nullify the contravention already completed.
Emphasising that MCA filings constitute public records relied upon by regulators, shareholders, and creditors, the order reiterated that accuracy is assured through Rule 8(3) of the Companies (Registration Offices and Fees) Rules, 2014.
Consequently, penalties of ₹10,000 each were imposed on the company and the authorised signatory, along with directions to rectify the filing and comply within the prescribed timelines .
Company Name - PIYUSH LTD
. Provisions of the Act: If a company or any officer of a company or any other person contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, or any condition, limitation or restriction subject to which any approval, sanction, consent, confirmation, recognition, direction or exemption in relation to any matter has been accorded, given or granted, and for which no penalty or punishment is provided elsewhere in this Act, the company and every officer of the company who is in default or such other person shall be 1[liable to a penalty of ten thousand rupees, and in case of continuing contravention, with a further penalty of one thousand rupees for each day after the first during which the contravention continues, subject to a maximum of two lakh rupees in case of a company and fifty thousand rupees in case of an officer who is in default or any other person]
Whereas as per Rule 8(3) of The Companies (The Registration Offices and Fees) Rules, 2014 states that: – The authorised signatory and the professional, if any, who certify e-form shall be responsible for the correctness of the contents of e-form and correctness of the enclosures attached with the electronic form.
#companyCompliances
#penaltyoncompany
www.rahuljhaassociatelegal.com
1 week ago | [YT] | 0
View 0 replies
Rahul Jha Associate Legal
Recently, the Karnataka High Court held that a Sessions Court cannot entertain an appeal against an order of acquittal in bailable offences, as such appeals lie exclusively before the High Court. Setting aside a conviction recorded by the Sessions Court, the Court delivered a sharp reminder on jurisdiction, observing that “an order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity”, and that continuation of such proceedings strikes at the heart of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Sri K. Keshava v. State of Karnataka.
#chequedishonour
#chequebounce
#acquittal
#sessionacourt
#Karnatakahighcourt
1 week ago | [YT] | 0
View 0 replies
Load more