ROC imposed the highest permissible penalty after finding prolonged failure to file AOC-4. The ruling underscores strict enforcement of Section 137(3) and personal accountability of directors.
The authority held that non-filing of financial statements under section 137 attracts strict penalties. Prolonged default justified imposition of the maximum amount prescribed by law.
The ruling reiterates that prolonged filing defaults invite monetary penalties on both the company and officers in default.
ROC held that failure to file financial statements for consecutive years violates Section 137, warranting statutory penalties on both the company and its directors.
An inspection under section 206(5) confirmed long-standing filing failures, resulting in statutory penalties on the company and officers in default.
The adjudicating authority held that exceeding the ₹100 crore borrowing threshold makes secretarial audit compulsory. Failure to appoint a Secretarial Auditor attracts fixed penalties under the Companies Act.
Description: A clerical mistake in the allotment date led to a violation of section 62(1)(a), attracting penalty under section 450 despite subsequent rectification.
The issue was whether recovery could continue after filing GST appeals with pre-deposit. The High Court held that the recovery notice lost its force and ordered de-freezing of the bank account.
The Madras High Court remitted a GST order for fresh adjudication, emphasizing that the petitioner must submit a reply with supporting documents before finalizing the tax demand.
The issue was whether GST show cause notices could be quashed at the threshold. The High Court held that alleged procedural lapses can be raised before the adjudicating authority, not in writ proceedings.
