Wednesday, February 17, 2021

SMALL PVT LTD COMPANY - COMPLIANCE UNDER COMPANIES ACT 2013 - A READY RECKONER

 In the budget speech on 01 February 2021 Finance Minister has proposed to revise the threshold for determining a company as a “small company”.

The capital threshold will be Rs.2 Crores ( at present  50 lakhs )  and the turnover threshold will be Rs.20 Crores (at present 2 crores). If a company has more turnover and less capital or if a company has more capital and less turnover, still it will not enjoy the status of a small company.

Let's take the case of a private limited company which is within the thresholds and falls within the category of a small company and discuss up to what extent a small company is required to comply with provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and connected rules,  as follows ;

Subject Matter

Provisions

Maximum Number of Directors limited to 15

Yes

DIN

Required

Disqualification of Directors

Applicable

Duties of Directors

Applicable

Retirement of Directors by Rotation

Not Required; unless Articles
otherwise provide

Accepting Loans and Deposits from Directors

Permitted

Accepting Loans and Deposits from relatives of Directors

Permitted

Accepting Loans and Deposits from Shareholders           

Permitted

Internal Committee under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal ) Act,2013

Required

Compliance of provisions on Related Party Transactions

Applicable

Disclosure of Interests by Directors

Required

Participation by Interested Directors

Permitted

Prohibition to granting loans to directors and relatives

Not Applicable unless the
company’s borrowings are equal
to or more than twice of its paid
up share capital

CSR Provisions, CSR Policy, Disclosures of CSR Policy and CSR Committee

Will apply only if net profits are Rs.5 Crores or more in the immediately preceding financial year; in any case, if the amount to be spent should be Rs.50 Lakhs, the average net profits during the three immediately preceding financial years must be of the size of 25 Crores. Therefore, the question of constituting CSR Committee may not arise. If CSR provisions apply due to phenomenal net profits, CSR Policy must be there and the same must also be disclosed in the Board’ Report

Annual Return

Required

Board’s Report

Required; however only abridged version as per rule 8A of the Companies (Accounts) Rules, 2014.

Audited Financial Statements (AFS)

Required

Cash Flow Statements

Not Required

Consolidated Financial Statements

Not Required

AOC -1, statement containing salient features of subsidiary etc.,

Not Required; unless the company has any joint venture or associate company.

Particulars of Contracts and Arrangements with Related Parties to be included in the Board’s Report in form AOC-2

Required

Appointment of Auditors

Required

Accounting Standards

As would apply to small and medium
sized companies

Register of Members

Required

Register of Directors

Required

Register of Loans, Guarantees etc.,

Required

Register of Investments

Required

Register of Contracts and Arrangements with Related Parties

Required

Registration of Charges

Required

Holding not less than 4 Board Meetings

Required

Annual General Meeting

Required

Secretarial Standards

Applicable

Requirement to Maintain Minutes of Board and General Meeting

Required

Passing of Board Resolutions by Circulation of Resolutions to Directors

Permitted

Exercising of Powers only at Board Meetings

Required

Filing of Special and other Resolutions with Registrar of Companies in MGT-14 other than those falling under Section 179(3) of the Act

Required

 

 


Saturday, February 13, 2021

BANK GUARATNEE UNDER CAROTAR – Much awaited order for importers who avail FTA benefits !!!

Post introduction of CAROTAR 2020, most of the importers who avail FTA benefits are frequently facing an issue of demand of 100% Bank Guarantee by Customs due to pending COO verification / enquiry pending etc.

Here is a good news to them that Hon’ble Tripura High Court ordered to accept Indemnity Bond and release the goods against provisional assessment.

It is apparent that when the verification is initiated, no record was available with the customs nor any communication was made to the importer that the verification was being under Rule 6(1)(a) or Rule 6(1)(b) or Rule 6 (4)(c) of the CAROTAR 2020 and hence, there was no reference to the security (BG).

The Importers are not afforded any opportunity to meet the purported deficiency for which the clearance has been refused. No observation on the legality or regularity of the process of verification on merit is called for at this stage, considering that the verification is still inconclusive.

The court has noted that the importer has not challenged the process of the verification  but the importer has made serious allegation that without affording any opportunity to him in respect of meeting any deficiency, the importer had been asked to opt or request for provisional assessment for purpose of clearing the goods on furnishing the security [100% bank guarantee] for the difference between the duty provisionally assessed under Section 18 of the Act and the preferential duty claimed.

Hon’ble Tripura High Court  held that “ the assessing officer and the other authorities are directed to provisionally assess the duty and to release the goods on obtaining an indemnity bond, to be submitted by the petitioner binding himself to deposit the duty or the difference between the duty that would be assessed by the competent authority on verification and the preferential duty within a period of 7(seven) days. In the event of failure to deposit the assessed duty on completion of verification within the said stipulated time, the payable duty shall carry interest at the rate of 15% per annum till the said duty is deposited”

“ The provisional assessment in respect of the goods covered under the Bill of Entry dated shall be completed within a period of two days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After furnishing of the indemnity bond, those goods be released within next 24 (twenty four) hours”

SHRI PIJUSH BANIK VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DIVISION-1, CGST & SERVICE TAX, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS, TRIPURA HIGH COURT decided on 08.02.2021

Very Important : In above case the importer has met all criteria of the CAROTAR, 2020 and possessed all information regarding the country of Origin of Goods as per Rule 4 and have furnished all requisite information to customs.

Please Visit :https://eximblogs.blogspot.com/

                                     www.eximblogs.com

 # Customs Law Quick Bites-49

 

Friday, February 12, 2021

Detention of vehicles and seizure of goods in transit under GST - Kerala High Court's clarification

 M/s Podaran Foods India (P) Ltd. (Appellant) vs. State of Kerala (Respondent)  Kerala High Court decided on 12.01.2021

Facts of the case: 

The Appellant filed the writ petitions challenging detention orders passed under the CGST Act when the scheme of the Act clearly indicated that the writ court was not to be ordinarily approached in detention cases where effective alternative remedies by way of provisional clearance, and appeal thereafter, were provided against alleged arbitrary/illegal detention orders. The goods and the vehicles were detained by the respondents on the ground that there was only one common invoice (for 22 packages) that was generated in respect of the two consignments, and when compared with the number of packages that were contained in each of the vehicles, there was a shortage of packages in both the vehicles. It was also found that the petitioner had not complied with the procedure prescribed under Rule 55 (5) of the CGST Rules while transporting goods in semi knocked down (SKD) or completely knocked down (CKD) condition or in batches or lots. 

Judgement: 

Kerala High Court explained the provision when the seizure of the goods or the vehicle can be exercised in a case where there seems a doubt of evasion in taxes. The consignee can choose to make the stipulated payments as per the notice, after which the notice would be concretized in the form of another order and the proceedings closed. But if the consignee wishes to challenge the detention/seizure, he can furnish security in the form of a bank guarantee covering the prescribed sum and get his goods/vehicle released provisionally, and then make his representation. Further, when it comes to making an appeal in the High Court, it was clearly specified that only after the consignee is given an opportunity to be heard and his objections considered can the concerned authority issue an order. If aggrieved, the consignee can approach the relevant authority under the legislation in appeal, but cannot approach the High Court at this stage. Hence, it was decided that detention and seizure of goods and vehicles is a reasonable restriction on the exercise of free trade and movement, but shouldn’t be exercised strictly only in order to prevent possible tax evasion. The Court opined that the need for strict construction of detention laws was “what is at stake is a constitutional right, fundamental or otherwise, of a citizen”

Please Visit :https://eximblogs.blogspot.com/

                                     www.eximblogs.com

 #GST Law Quick Bites-48

Thursday, February 11, 2021

CUSTOMS BROKER’S CONTRACT OF IMPORT CLEARANCE INCLUDING PAYMENT CUSTOMS DUTY ON BEHALF OF IMPORTERS – IS CB ALSO LIABLE FOR PELATY U/S 114A DUE TO MIS DECLARATION / DUTY EVASION ?

 An importer had outsourced the entire import clearance operations to the customs broker. The Customs Broker has mis declared value of goods. During the assessment of the bill of entry, it was found by the department that the value declared by the CB was much lower than the value of contemporaneous imports and found CB had deliberately mis declared the quantity of the goods in order to evade payment of customs duty.

The Deputy Commissioner narrating the entire sequence of events ordered for confiscation of the imported consignments under Section 111(l) of the Customs Act 1962 and allowed the redemption on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 2,00,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act. He confirmed the demand of duty of ₹ 4,82,054/- upon reassessment and appropriated the amount of duty already paid towards this amount. He also imposed a penalty of ₹ 49,000/- on the importer under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act 1962.

Further he imposed a penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- upon the Customs Broker under Section 114AA of the Customs Act 1962 for presenting false and incorrect material in the declarations made in the bills of entry.

The importer has not contested the order of the Deputy Commissioner and neither has the CB. The CB has paid the penalty imposed under Section 114AA.

Aggrieved by the order of the adjudicating authority, the Revenue has filed an appeal before the first appellate authority arguing that the penalties should have been imposed by the Deputy Commissioner upon the customs broker under Section 114A of the Customs Act 1962 which has not been done. Agreeing with the appeal filed by the Revenue, the first appellate authority has imposed a penalty of ₹ 4,82,054/- under Section 114A upon the Customs Broker. Aggrieved by the order, the present appeal has been filed by the Customs Broker before CESTAT.

Now let us the CESTAT order as follows ;

“SECTION 12. Dutiable goods. - (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, or any other law for the time being in force, duties of customs shall be levied at such rates as may be specified under [the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975)], or any other law for the time being in force, on goods imported into, or exported from, India.

(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply in respect of all goods belonging to Government as they apply in respect of goods not belonging to Government.”

As can be seen, the charge of customs duty is on the goods imported or exported. The importer or exporter is therefore liable to pay the customs duty. It does not matter if  the importer or exporter entrusts this responsibility to somebody else, may be his own employee or an agent. The liability is on the importer or exporter only. The definition of importer also includes “any person who holds himself out to be importer”. In this case the Customs Broker has not claimed to be importer. In fact, the bills of entry mention the name of the main importer as the importer for the consignments. Therefore, the liability of customs duty rests only upon the importer. Accordingly Section 114A also applied to the importer in this case. It cannot apply to customs broker whose offence was mis-declaring facts in the bills of entry. Section 114AA is meant for such offences and a penalty under this has already been imposed by the Deputy Commissioner which has been paid by the Customs Broker.

Hence the impugned order imposing penalty of ₹ 4,82,054/- under Section 114A upon the Customs Broker is set aside.

RADO IMPEX LOGISTICS PVT LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CESTAT HYDERABAD decided on 03.12.2019

Please Visit :https://eximblogs.blogspot.com/

                                     www.eximblogs.com

 #Customs Law Quick Bites-47