Show Cause Notices issued by MCA for non-compliance with the Cost Audit Provisions:
The notices have been served electronically as envisaged in Section 20 of the Companies Act 2013 in section 148.
Sub-section (8) of Section 148 of the Act states "If any default is made in complying with the provisions of this section, (a) the company and every officer of the company who is in default shall be punishable in the manner as provided in sub-section (1) of section 147; (b) the cost auditor of the company who is in default shall be punishable in the manner as provided in sub-sections (2) to (4) of section 147."
Section 147. (1) If any of the provisions of sections 139 to 146 (both inclusive) is contravened, the company shall be punishable with fine which shall not be less than twenty-five thousand rupees but which may extend to five lakh rupees and every officer of the company who is in default shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. (2) If an auditor of a company contravenes any of the provisions of section 139, section 143, section 144 or section 145, the auditor shall be punishable with fine which shall not be less than twenty-five thousand rupees but which may extend to five lakh rupees:
SCN :
Show Cause Notice under Section 148 (8) of the Companies Act, 2013 (Act) XYZ LIMITED
1.WHEREAS, it has been found from our records that your company falls under the ambit of Cost Audit but has failed to submit the Cost Audit Report for the Financial Year 2014-15 within the statutory time limit prescribed by Sec. 148(6) of the Act and Rule 6 of Companies (Cost Records and Audit) Rules, 2014 (Rules) read with first proviso to Sec. 403(1) of the Act. Accordingly, sub-section (6) of Section 148 of the Act has been contravened.
2. WHEREAS, as per sub-section (8) of Section 148 of the Act, "If any default is made in complying with the provisions of this section, the company and every officer of the company who is in default shall be punishable in the manner as provided in sub-section (1) of section 147; the cost auditor of the company who is in default shall be punishable in the manner as provided in sub-sections (2) to (4) of section 147."
3. Now, therefore the addressees, being the Company and its officers, are hereby called upon to show cause as to why action shall not be taken to initiate prosecution under clause (a) of sub-section (8) of Section 148 read with section 147(1) of the Act for contravention of section 148(6) of the Act read with sub-rule (5) and (6) of Rule 6 of the Rules.
4. Please take notice that if no reply is received or cause shown within 21 days from the date of issue of this notice, necessary prosecution against the company and all its officers who are in default shall be launched in the Court.
5. Your attention is invited to the provisions of Section 441 of the Act for compounding of the said offence.
6. In term of the provision of Section 20 of the Act, the notice is hereby being served on the company and all its officers who are in default at the registered office of the company by electronic mode on the email id provided by the company on MCA Portal.
7. Company is requested to bring this notice in the knowledge of its officers in default, immediately upon its receipt. GST is aligned with the cost audit and only smooth implementation of cost audit provisions and expansion of cost audit regime can help the companies to demand for the due share under GST in the form of reduced rates and the government based on the authentic data can take calls under GST regime with regard to anti-profiteering, valuations etc.
Please share how to Reply ?
compliance
cost
audit
provisions
companies
section
show
cause
notice
Friends,
In a Pvt Ltd Company only 2 directors were on board and one director died so Pl confirm within how many days another director needs to be appointed to comply criteria of minimum 2 directors on board.
Companies will now be eligible to come out with Fast Track Rights Issue, in case of pending show-cause notices w.r.t. adjudication, prosecution proceedings and audit qualification, provided that necessary disclosures along with potential adverse impact on the issuer are made in the letter of offer.
Confirm if any one doing.
I have a query ...can a bank reject a BR because it is more than 3 months old...the bank is telling me that BR is valid only for 3 months. I had an argument over this with the Bank.
The assessee was issued show-cause notice under section 143 (2) for scrutiny, followed by notice u/s. 142(1) r.w.s. 129 of the Act along with a detailed questionnaire enclosed requesting the assessee to submit the details which were timely submitted by the assessee. After reply from the assessee, Further Notices u/s. 142(1) were issued for the cash sales made to the certain customer and the assessee replied to it. In further 142(1) notices, there was nothing mentioned related to decline in the N.P. Ratio and disallowance of administrative expenses. But in the order u/s. 143(3), disallowance of expenses was made without mentioning this issue in any of the show cause notice issued earlier.
Click here to view / answer Share it on
Dear Members
A auditor resigned due to lack of time.
he stated same reason in his ADT 3
Q1- Now Is it a casual vacancy or casual vacancy caused by resignation?
If its casual vacancy by resignation then we understand that BOD can appoint auditor subject to approval by EGM in 3 months.
Q2-In this connection should ADT1 be filed within 15 days of BOD appointment or within 15 days Only after approval by EGM?
please guide
ello to all,
We are filing the MGT 7 of a Pvt Ltd and in this company out of 2 Director one was disqualified u/s 164(2) and we were not able to complete INC 22A but after changing the DIR 12 version recently we remove this director and appoint one Director.
Now When we make cessation of that Director Resubmission was came that date of cessation shall be Date of Disqualification so we entered date of cessation as 01.11.2016 and the same was approved and that person cease from Master data and new Director appointed.
But when we mention the details of that Disqualified Director in MGT 7 of 2018-19 that he was the Director as on 31.03.2019, pre scrutiny error is coming that DIN is not associated with current Designation.
So what will be the solution. Pls guide
Dear Members,
Please Suggest me Does there is Change in Accounting Standard due to XBRL (eXtensible Business Reporting Language)
standard
accounting
change
cause
xbrl
The vacancy caused by the death of a director is to be filled. Now which route should be taken i.e. filling the same by the Board in the manner as laid down for filling a casual vacancy ( i.e. for the remaining period of the original director) or appointment as Fresh (Additional Director). Kindly elaborate the logic behind the (selected) manner of appointment. What if the deceased is an ID?
Click here to view / answer Share it on
