The Telangana High Court permitted the taxpayer to seek revocation of GST registration cancellation after returns were not filed due to closure of business. The Court granted liberty to file a fresh application as the petitioner intended to restart operations.
The Telangana High Court directed GST authorities to decide pending cancellation proceedings within two weeks after noting that the taxpayer’s business operations had come to a standstill.
ROC Patna penalized a company and its managing director for non-filing of annual return for FY 2018-19. The order highlights strict enforcement of Section 92 compliance under the Companies Act, 2013.
The Registrar of Companies held that continued non-filing of annual return violated Section 92(4) of the Companies Act, leading to penalties on both the company and its managing director.
ROC Patna penalized a company and its managing director for failure to file annual returns under Sections 92(4) and 92(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. The order highlights strict consequences for continued annual compliance defaults.
ROC Patna penalized a company and its Managing Director for failing to file the annual return for FY 2023-24. The order highlights strict enforcement of Section 92 compliance under the Companies Act, 2013.
ROC Patna imposed penalty under Section 92(5) after the company failed to file its annual return for FY 2019-20. The authority also noted absence of representation during adjudication proceedings.
ROC Patna penalized a company and its managing director for failure to file financial statements under Section 137(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The order highlights that prolonged filing defaults can attract maximum statutory penalties.
The ROC imposed the maximum statutory penalty on a Nidhi company for non-filing of financial statements under Section 137(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The Managing Director was also penalized separately for continuing default.
The article explains how courts use the Gillette Defence to reject patent infringement claims when the accused product or process already existed as prior art. It highlights major rulings from India, the UK, Canada, and Europe that reinforce the principle that public knowledge cannot be monopolized.
