https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99691 Liability under section 162 of the Companies Act, 1956 for failure to file the annual return under section 159 does not arise merely because a person is a director or other officer of the company. The prosecution must prove, with reference to section 5, that the accused was knowingly guilty of the default or knowingly and wilfully authorised or permitted the non-compliance. On the facts discussed, the evidence did not show that the company lacked a manager or secretary, nor that the petitioner knew the return was not filed in time. The inference that he authorised the default because his signature was not obtained could not be sustained, so criminal liability was not established. en-us Mon, 13 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Jan 2012 12:58:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99691 Liability under section 162 of the Companies Act, 1956 for failure to file the annual return under section 159 does not arise merely because a person is a director or other officer of the company. The prosecution must prove, with reference to section 5, that the accused was knowingly guilty of the default or knowingly and wilfully authorised or permitted the non-compliance. On the facts discussed, the evidence did not show that the company lacked a manager or secretary, nor that the petitioner knew the return was not filed in time. The inference that he authorised the default because his signature was not obtained could not be sustained, so criminal liability was not established. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 13 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99691