<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1988 (5) TMI 376 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302546</link>
    <description>Failure to file the balance sheet and profit and loss account within the time prescribed by the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as a completed default on expiry of the due date, not a continuing offence. Applying the test for continuing offences, the court noted that the statute did not make the continued non-compliance itself a distinct penal wrong, and a daily fine provision did not by itself extend limitation. As the complaint was filed long after the offence was complete, cognizance was barred by limitation under the Criminal Procedure Code, and the saving provision for delayed proceedings was not attracted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2022 15:21:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=681003" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (5) TMI 376 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302546</link>
      <description>Failure to file the balance sheet and profit and loss account within the time prescribed by the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as a completed default on expiry of the due date, not a continuing offence. Applying the test for continuing offences, the court noted that the statute did not make the continued non-compliance itself a distinct penal wrong, and a daily fine provision did not by itself extend limitation. As the complaint was filed long after the offence was complete, cognizance was barred by limitation under the Criminal Procedure Code, and the saving provision for delayed proceedings was not attracted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302546</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>