https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780976 AT allowed the appeal, holding that the erstwhile company secretary could not be held liable for CIS violations since the role is ministerial/secretarial and not responsible for company or board acts. The tribunal found the WTM's finding of chargeability unsustainable, criticized the Recovery Officer's imprudent attachment of the appellant's pension and relative's account, and faulted SEBI's mechanical prosecution. Delay of 2,537 days in filing was condoned as not prejudicial. The AT also held that Section 15-I(3) permits only enhancement of an existing penalty, not imposition of new penal consequences. en-us Thu, 04 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Nov 2025 18:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780976 AT allowed the appeal, holding that the erstwhile company secretary could not be held liable for CIS violations since the role is ministerial/secretarial and not responsible for company or board acts. The tribunal found the WTM's finding of chargeability unsustainable, criticized the Recovery Officer's imprudent attachment of the appellant's pension and relative's account, and faulted SEBI's mechanical prosecution. Delay of 2,537 days in filing was condoned as not prejudicial. The AT also held that Section 15-I(3) permits only enhancement of an existing penalty, not imposition of new penal consequences. Case-Laws SEBI Thu, 04 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780976