Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
HC held that Section 39(5) of the Companies Act must be applied...
Proportionality in company penalty quantification requires aggravating and mitigating factors; mechanical multiplication of director liability is impermissible.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
HC held that Section 39(5) of the Companies Act must be applied with proportionality, so penalty quantification cannot be reduced to a mechanical daily computation; aggravating and mitigating circumstances must be considered under Rule 3(12), and the impugned order was arbitrary in treating the provision as fixed and mandatory. The Court also held that non-certification of the list of allottees separately with Form PAS-3 remained a technical default attracting liability, although the affirmation in the form mitigated its gravity. On officer liability, the penalty could not be mechanically multiplied by the number of directors; it was modified to joint and several liability against the company and its directors.
HC held that Section 39(5) of the Companies Act must be applied with proportionality, so penalty quantification cannot be reduced to a mechanical daily computation; aggravating and mitigating circumstances must be considered under Rule 3(12), and the impugned order was arbitrary in treating the provision as fixed and mandatory. The Court also held that non-certification of the list of allottees separately with Form PAS-3 remained a technical default attracting liability, although the affirmation in the form mitigated its gravity. On officer liability, the penalty could not be mechanically multiplied by the number of directors; it was modified to joint and several liability against the company and its directors.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
