Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
Condonation of delay in filing GSTR-3B returns and entitlement to Section 62 benefit results in withdrawal of assessments and revocation of attachment...
Penalty under the law arises as a discretionary sanction and authorities may impose it; however, where a State government organisation lacked malafide intent, faced staffing and procedural difficulties, and ultimately filed the required correction statement rectifying defects, the tribunal found that quasi criminal penalty was inappropriate and granted leniency by setting aside the penalty. The note emphasises that discretion (expressed by 'may') permits relief where procedural obstacles and absence of deliberate default are established and where administrative assistance was lacking, supporting mitigation rather than enforcement.
Penalty under the law arises as a discretionary sanction and authorities may impose it; however, where a State government organisation lacked malafide intent, faced staffing and procedural difficulties, and ultimately filed the required correction statement rectifying defects, the tribunal found that quasi criminal penalty was inappropriate and granted leniency by setting aside the penalty. The note emphasises that discretion (expressed by 'may') permits relief where procedural obstacles and absence of deliberate default are established and where administrative assistance was lacking, supporting mitigation rather than enforcement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.