https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782475 Contemporaneous records showed that the cost audit report was approved and handed over on 30.06.2016, and Form CRA-4 was filed on 27.07.2016, within thirty days. The incorrect date in the uploaded form was treated as a clerical mistake, so the alleged contravention of the filing requirement was not made out. The complaint also alleged only an offence punishable with fine, yet it was instituted about three years later, beyond the limitation period. Cognizance on that time-barred complaint was unsustainable, and continuation of the proceeding was held to be an abuse of process, warranting quashing in inherent jurisdiction. en-us Thu, 27 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Dec 2025 08:50:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782475 Contemporaneous records showed that the cost audit report was approved and handed over on 30.06.2016, and Form CRA-4 was filed on 27.07.2016, within thirty days. The incorrect date in the uploaded form was treated as a clerical mistake, so the alleged contravention of the filing requirement was not made out. The complaint also alleged only an offence punishable with fine, yet it was instituted about three years later, beyond the limitation period. Cognizance on that time-barred complaint was unsustainable, and continuation of the proceeding was held to be an abuse of process, warranting quashing in inherent jurisdiction. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 27 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782475