M. Buha & Co.’s Post

🚨 Compliance Alert! 🚨 In a recent decision by the RoC, Tamil Nadu, M/s. Mazhil Nidhi Limited faced a setback as the NDH-4 form for Nidhi declaration was rejected. Why? The financial statement for 31.03.2019, attached to form AOC-4, was not signed by two directors (one being the Managing Director). ⚠️ 📜 This was deemed non-compliant with Section 134(1) of the Companies Act, leading to a penalty of INR 4,50,000 💸 on the company and its defaulting directors under Section 134(8). 📢 Key takeaway: Ensure all statutory filings are correctly signed off! ✍️ #CorporateCompliance #CompaniesAct #NidhiCompany #RoCTamilNadu #Penalty

NFRA Penalises Partners of Audit Firm M/s Haribhakti and Co. LLP for Audit Lapses 💼⚖️ The National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA) has penalised the partners of M/s Haribhakti and Co. LLP for professional lapses during audits. This action highlights the importance of accountability and compliance in ensuring the integrity of financial reporting. 📊🔍 Audit firms must uphold the highest standards to maintain trust and transparency in financial disclosures. 🛡️ #NFRA #AuditLapses #HaribhaktiAndCo #AuditPenalties #CorporateGovernance #FinancialReporting #AuditCompliance #IndiaBusiness #Transparency #ProfessionalConduct #RegulatoryCompliance #CorporateEthics #caingandhinagar #cathakkar #gandhinagar

🚨 Breaking News: Ex-Telangana Chief Secretary Booked in GST Scam 🚨 A former Telangana chief secretary has been implicated in a massive GST scam involving fraudulent claims and fake invoices worth crores. Authorities have booked the high-profile bureaucrat and several others in connection with this financial misconduct. Investigations are underway to uncover the full extent of the scam. LINKEDIN #gstupdates #gstcompliance #gstreturns #gstnews #gstindia #gst #gstmitra #capraveensharma #incometaxindia #incometaxreturn #incometax #einvoicing #einvoice #ewaybill #corporate #training #traininganddevelopment #trainings #eventmanagement #event Stay tuned for updates on this developing story. #GSTScam #Telangana #BreakingNews #FinancialFraud #IndiaNews

Explore the legal framework and key compliance requirements for director appointments in India. Learn about the process, common pitfalls, and post-appointment obligations to ensure effective governance and regulatory adherence. - https://lnkd.in/gRzk9v_q #DirectorAppointment #CorporateGovernance #Compliance #LegalFramework #CompaniesAct #BusinessEthics #RegulatoryCompliance #CorporateLaw #FinancialStatements #RiskManagement

NFRA Penalises Deloitte for Alleged Lapses in ZEEL Audit 💼⚖️ #NFRA #Deloitte #ZEEL #AuditLapses #CorporateGovernance #FinancialTransparency #AuditPenalties #RegulatoryCompliance #ProfessionalMisconduct #AuditFirm #IndiaBusiness #FinancialReporting #CorporateEthics #AuditRegulations #ComplianceMatters #caingandhinagar #cathakkar #gandhinagar

📌 Compliance is costly, unless one faces prosecution, #compliancefirst In today’s fast-evolving corporate landscape, compliance isn’t just about following the law—it’s about fostering transparency and trust. 🌐✨ 🚨 Here’s what happened recently: The Registrar of Companies (ROC), Patna, imposed a penalty of ₹50,000 each on both the directors and the company for non-compliance with Section 158 of the Companies Act, 2013. 💡 What is Section 158? Section 158 mandates that every company or person filing returns, information, or other particulars under the Act must include the Director Identification Number (DIN) of the concerned directors. • 📌 Why is it important? • Ensures accountability of directors. • Strengthens corporate transparency. ⚖️ The Violation: The company failed to include the DIN in its financial statements for the fiscal years ending March 31, 2018, and March 31, 2020. This omission led to the penalties—a reminder of the cost of non-compliance. 📜 What can we learn? 1. Compliance is Key: Small oversights, like missing a DIN, can lead to hefty penalties. 2. Technology + Compliance: With modern tools and digitization, it’s easier than ever to ensure all statutory requirements are met. 💻📈 3. Proactive Measures Save Costs: Knowing the law and adhering to it doesn’t cost much—it’s non-compliance that proves expensive. 📎 Attached: A copy of the ROC order for your reference. 🔑 Takeaway: As we embrace the age of technology, ensuring compliance with laws like Section 158 is no longer optional but essential. Let’s prioritize it to build stronger, more transparent businesses. 🚀 Your thoughts? Share your experiences or insights on the importance of corporate compliance in the comments! ⬇️ #Compliance #CorporateGovernance #CompaniesAct #Transparency #ROCOrder #CorporateCompliance #Legalissues #law #finance #RGA Ministry Of Corporate Affairs, #ROC #Patna

Case Update:- In my recent case, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, Bangalore Bench, in W.P. No. 3216 of 2024 has stayed the operation of order passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act,2017. The arguments were fundamentally based upon the following arguments- 1. Whether the Notification issued under Section 168A to extend the time limit for passing the order under Section 73 of the CGST Act, till 31.12.2023, is ultra-vires to the power of Central Government. 2. Whether the circular issued under the KGST Act conferring powers on the Audit officers to adjudicate the show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act, has contours of biasness and unfairness. A copy of the order is attached herewith for reference-

The Action Taken Report (ATR) Module of AuditOnline has been introduced by the Ministry of Panchayati Raj (MoPR), marking a significant step towards increasing accountability and transparency in Panchayat audits. This module, which was presented at a virtual event via video conference. #vanigasevai #india #ca #accounting #tamilnadu #lawyer

Maintainability of Complaint under Consumer Protection Act against service providers: ( Question & Answer No.139). Question: Can I make a complaint under Consumer Protection Act against the service providers if the services are availed by me for the commercial purpose? My answer is as follows: The Consumer Protection Act 1986 bars the maintainability of the consumer complaint against the service providers if the services are availed by the consumer for the commercial purpose. However, there is an exception to this bar. A complaint would be maintainable against the service providers if the goods/services are availed by the consumer for the commercial purpose, 'exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment'. In the case " SHRIRAM CHITS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED EARLIER KNOWN AS SHRIRAM CHITS (K) PVT. LTD. V/s. RAGHACHAND ASSOCIATES" reported in, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 368, the hon'ble Supreme Court of India has set out the manner in which the consumer fora must decide technical pleas raised by service providers against the maintainability of the consumer complaints on the ground that goods/services were availed by the consumer for the commercial purposes. The hon'ble Apex Court held that unless it is proved by the service provider that the goods/services were availed for the commercial purpose by the consumer, the service provider cannot dispute about the maintainability of the consumer complaint. With Regards, S.Jeevagan, M.A.,LL.M., Advocate & Legal consultant, Madurai. 21.06.2024.

There are a few judgments related to criminal breach of trust :- 1) State of Gujarat vs Jaswant Lal nath Lal (1967 SC) 2) CBI v. Duncan Agro Industries (1996,SC) 3) Indian oil corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006,SC) 4) N Raghvender v. State of Andhra Pradesh, CBI (2021, SC) 5) Kishore Biyani vs State of UP. (2024, SC) 6) Sachin Grag v. State of U.P. (2024,SC) Among other things, two important things that we get from the above-mentioned judgments are:- 1) To make a out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that the money has been retained by the accused. It has to be shown that the accused dishonesty deposed of the same in some way or dishonesty retained the money. Mere allegation that the accused did not pay the money to the other party does not amount to criminal breach of trust. 2) Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code,1860, cannot go together since the essential ingredients of the two offences (i.e., entrusting the property and dishonestly inducing) are conflicting in nature.