https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219495 Fair hearing on penalty was found to have been afforded because the petitioner received the findings, was invited to file a written representation, and was given personal hearing, but did not avail either opportunity despite further time being granted; the natural justice challenge therefore failed. Findings of professional misconduct were also sustained because the petitioner admitted multiple audit and financial statement errors, and failure to exercise due diligence and gross negligence fell within the misconduct provision applicable to practising Chartered Accountants. The Court found no perversity, jurisdictional error, or disproportionality in the penalty of removal from the register for one year, and the disciplinary action was upheld. en-us Tue, 06 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Mar 2026 12:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219495 Fair hearing on penalty was found to have been afforded because the petitioner received the findings, was invited to file a written representation, and was given personal hearing, but did not avail either opportunity despite further time being granted; the natural justice challenge therefore failed. Findings of professional misconduct were also sustained because the petitioner admitted multiple audit and financial statement errors, and failure to exercise due diligence and gross negligence fell within the misconduct provision applicable to practising Chartered Accountants. The Court found no perversity, jurisdictional error, or disproportionality in the penalty of removal from the register for one year, and the disciplinary action was upheld. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 06 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219495