https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92957 SC held that the notice dated 10.06.2015 satisfied statutory requirements and afforded a fair opportunity to answer alleged contraventions; no statutory mandate existed for a second show-cause notice proposing penalty. Pursuant to the deeming provision in Section 48, the enterprise's key officers were liable as persons "in charge of and responsible" and could be subject to corollary directions incidental to behavioural remedies imposed primarily on the enterprise. The Commission must apply the doctrine of proportionality when imposing remedies under Section 27. The Commission's findings dated 08.09.2015 are restored in entirety and the appeal is allowed. en-us Tue, 30 Sep 2025 09:50:45 +0530 Tue, 30 Sep 2025 09:50:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92957 SC held that the notice dated 10.06.2015 satisfied statutory requirements and afforded a fair opportunity to answer alleged contraventions; no statutory mandate existed for a second show-cause notice proposing penalty. Pursuant to the deeming provision in Section 48, the enterprise's key officers were liable as persons "in charge of and responsible" and could be subject to corollary directions incidental to behavioural remedies imposed primarily on the enterprise. The Commission must apply the doctrine of proportionality when imposing remedies under Section 27. The Commission's findings dated 08.09.2015 are restored in entirety and the appeal is allowed. Highlights Law of Competition Tue, 30 Sep 2025 09:50:45 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92957