Registrar of Companies imposes penalty on Sitaram Maharaj Sakhar Karkhana for violating Section 137(1) Details, analysis and consequences revealed in the adjudication order
Explore the adjudication order under Section 454 against Shell Infotech Limited for non-compliance with Section 137 of the Companies Act, 2013. Detailed analysis, findings, and consequences.
Explore the Delhi High Court’s ruling in PCIT vs. B.L. Kashyap. Learn why CIT cannot extend Section 142(2C) Audit report submission time; crucial insights revealed.
Punjab AAR rules that purchases of raw cotton from Kacha Arhtia by Bansal Industries attract GST under reverse charge mechanism as per Section 9(3) of CGST/PGST Act 2017, aligning with Notification No. 13/2017 and No. 43/2017.
NAVCOM Industries faces penalties from MCA for not maintaining its registered office Explore the adjudication order violations and imposed lakh penalty
Advance Ruling Authority in Punjab rejected the application submitted by Paryag Trade Links due to non-compliance with the prescribed format and fee requirements. The applicant, a Works Contractor, sought clarification on the type of GST to be charged in a repair work contract with a company not registered in Punjab.
GST Advance ruling application rejected as applicant had only deposited Rs. 5,000 under SGST and not under CGST, failing to fulfill prescribed fee requirement under CGST Act.
Non-payment of requisite fee can lead to rejection of GST Advance Ruling application without addressing substantive questions raised by applicant.
Neither the applicant has submitted his application for Advance Ruling in prescribed format i.e. ARA-01, nor has deposited the requisite fee for filling Advance Ruling application. Thus, the application is hereby filed without any ruling.
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (GST AAR Punjab): Prepayment premium to be charged by PFC, New Delhi for prepayment of loans is taxable under CGST Act, 2017
