ROC held that failure to file Form PAS-3 within 15 days of share allotment violated Section 42(8) of the Companies Act. The company and its directors were penalized for the 61-day delay in compliance.
The ROC Haryana held that failure to file MGT-14 within 30 days of passing a special resolution for issuance of CCDs constitutes a violation under Section 117(2). Companies must adhere to statutory timelines even when the default is subsequently rectified.
ROC Haryana held that mentioning an incorrect purpose in e-Form MGT-14 constitutes a violation under Rule 8(3) read with Section 450 of the Companies Act. However, the penalty was reduced due to the company’s Small Company and Start-up status.
Although the show cause notice referred to the maximum penalty applicable for continuing contraventions, the adjudicating officer treated the lapse as a one-time offence. This resulted in a lower penalty under the Companies Act framework.
The ROC Haryana held that incorrectly stating the purpose of filing in e-Form MGT-14 constitutes a violation under Rule 8(3) read with Section 450 of the Companies Act. Companies must ensure accuracy in MCA filings, as inadvertent mistakes can still result in penalties.
ROC held that omission of prescribed disclosures in the explanatory statement for a CCD issuance violated Section 62(1)(c) and Rule 13(2)(d). The company and its officers were penalized under Section 450 after admitting the default.
The Madras High Court held that complete failure to file the annual return can attract both late fee under Section 47 and general penalty under Section 125. The ruling distinguishes non-filing from delayed filing, potentially widening GST penalty exposure.
The Madras High Court held that failure to file the annual return in Form GSTR-9 attracts late fee under Section 47(2) of the CGST Act. It further ruled that penalty under Section 125 is permissible where no separate penalty is prescribed for such default.
The Tribunal ruled that information from the Sales Tax Department and generic statements of alleged hawala dealers are insufficient without transaction-specific evidence. The key takeaway is that direct documentary proof carries greater evidentiary value.
CAAS suggested that while favourable outcomes may be automated, adverse actions should require a named officer’s approval supported by recorded reasons. The proposal seeks to balance technological efficiency with procedural fairness.
