Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
The SC held that an authorized signatory of a company does not fall within the ambit of the expression "drawer" u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). The expression "on an account maintained by him" in Section 138 refers to the account maintained by the drawer and not by an authorized signatory acting on behalf of the company. The scope of "any debt or other liability" in Section 138 is wide enough to cover any legally enforceable debt or liability, not necessarily between the drawer and payee. u/s 141, the company as the principal offender must be first held liable before extending vicarious liability to directors or persons in-charge. Since the accused was prosecuted in individual capacity and not as director, and the cheque was drawn on the company's account, the requirements of Section 138 were not met. The appeal was dismissed.
The SC held that an authorized signatory of a company does not fall within the ambit of the expression "drawer" u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). The expression "on an account maintained by him" in Section 138 refers to the account maintained by the drawer and not by an authorized signatory acting on behalf of the company. The scope of "any debt or other liability" in Section 138 is wide enough to cover any legally enforceable debt or liability, not necessarily between the drawer and payee. u/s 141, the company as the principal offender must be first held liable before extending vicarious liability to directors or persons in-charge. Since the accused was prosecuted in individual capacity and not as director, and the cheque was drawn on the company's account, the requirements of Section 138 were not met. The appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.