The ROC imposed penalties for failure to mention CIN and contact details on official letterheads. The key takeaway is that statutory disclosures are mandatory regardless of public data availability.
The order reiterates that disclosure of CIN and contact details on official publications is compulsory and non-negotiable under company law.
The authority held that omission of CIN, email, and contact number on official documents violates section 12(3)(c). Even technical disclosure lapses attract penalties under section 12(8).
ROC held that failure to number pages in statutory minutes books violates Section 118. Even clerical lapses can invite penalties on both the company and its directors.
The order reiterates that acknowledgment of default or suo-motu disclosure does not exempt companies from penalties for statutory non-compliance.
Karnataka High Court held that demand of service tax on ocean freight on import services is liable to be quashed since the petitioner are not the recipient of service for the purpose of notification no. 3/2017-ST dated 12.01.2017.
The authority held that not consecutively numbering minutes books violates section 118(1) of the Companies Act. Even procedural lapses in corporate records can lead to fixed penalties on both the company and directors.
ROC held that non-appointment of a small shareholders’ director violates Section 151. The company and its directors were penalised at the statutory maximum under Section 172 for prolonged default.
CESTAT Kolkata held that knitted readymade garments are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 6102 and, accordingly, the drawback rate would be 10% of FOB value. Accordingly, the appeal filed by appellant is disposed of.
The order reinforces that persistent non-filing of financial statements invites severe monetary consequences for both companies and directors.
