Appeal allowed; impugned order quashed as regulator failed to prove nexus or manipulative scheme; sale genuine - s.12A(a)-(c), Regs 3(a)-(d),4(1),4(2)...
Appellant's ring-back tone service held OIDAR, taxable domestically for 01.07.2012-31.07.2016; liability confirmed, penalties vacated, remanded for re...
HC, exercising revisional jurisdiction under s. 482 CrPC, quashed criminal proceedings initiated against A1 and others for alleged violation of s. 148(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, based on a complaint under s. 148(8). HC found that the Board had approved the cost audit report on 30.06.2016, the Cost Auditor had signed the report and annexures on the same date at Kolkata, and Form CRA-4 was filed on 27.07.2016, well within the prescribed 30-day period. The alleged delay arose only from a clerical error in typing the date in Form CRA-4. HC also held the complaint, lodged after about three years, to be barred by limitation under s. 468 CrPC.
HC, exercising revisional jurisdiction under s. 482 CrPC, quashed criminal proceedings initiated against A1 and others for alleged violation of s. 148(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, based on a complaint under s. 148(8). HC found that the Board had approved the cost audit report on 30.06.2016, the Cost Auditor had signed the report and annexures on the same date at Kolkata, and Form CRA-4 was filed on 27.07.2016, well within the prescribed 30-day period. The alleged delay arose only from a clerical error in typing the date in Form CRA-4. HC also held the complaint, lodged after about three years, to be barred by limitation under s. 468 CrPC.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
