https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386436 A company complaint under Rule 3(4) had to be backed by specific authorisation for the particular complaint, not a general resolution to lodge complaints in future; because no such specific authority existed, the complaint failed on that ground. Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules also allowed refusal to entertain a complaint made after seven years where delay prejudiced defence and evidence; as the complaint was filed more than seven years after the latest audit report and the respondent showed difficulty in preserving working papers, it was treated as stale and time barred. The challenge therefore failed. en-us Wed, 11 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Sep 2019 17:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386436 A company complaint under Rule 3(4) had to be backed by specific authorisation for the particular complaint, not a general resolution to lodge complaints in future; because no such specific authority existed, the complaint failed on that ground. Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules also allowed refusal to entertain a complaint made after seven years where delay prejudiced defence and evidence; as the complaint was filed more than seven years after the latest audit report and the respondent showed difficulty in preserving working papers, it was treated as stale and time barred. The challenge therefore failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 11 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386436