Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The NCLAT upheld the impugned order dated 02.04.2025, affirming it as a continuation of prior directions rather than a review or recall prohibited under Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal found no justification for conducting a Secretarial Audit given the absence of evidence that financial statements were ever filed with the ROC for the period 2015-2023. The appellant failed to produce any material disputing the PCS report, which confirmed that the company was non-operational and thus ineligible for such audit. The appellant's reliance on pleadings without judicial scrutiny or evidential support was rejected. Consequently, the order dispensing with the Secretarial Audit was deemed judicious and based on a proper appreciation of the record. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety for lack of merit.
The NCLAT upheld the impugned order dated 02.04.2025, affirming it as a continuation of prior directions rather than a review or recall prohibited under Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal found no justification for conducting a Secretarial Audit given the absence of evidence that financial statements were ever filed with the ROC for the period 2015-2023. The appellant failed to produce any material disputing the PCS report, which confirmed that the company was non-operational and thus ineligible for such audit. The appellant's reliance on pleadings without judicial scrutiny or evidential support was rejected. Consequently, the order dispensing with the Secretarial Audit was deemed judicious and based on a proper appreciation of the record. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety for lack of merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
