Bank of England (News)
중도
기타
Statistical Notice 2026/05 - Implementation of Bank of England Statistics Taxonomy v1.3.1
Statistical Notices update the definitions and guidance contained in the Banking Statistics Yellow Folder
"NOTICES" · 총 38건
필터 보기현재 지수
50.2
0 = 부정 우세
50 = 중립
100 = 긍정 우세
최근 7일 기준 84,061건을 분석한 결과, 뉴스 심리지수는 50.2(균형)입니다. 긍정 3,829건(4.6%)·중립 78,251건(93.1%)·부정 1,981건(2.4%)이며, 중립 비중이 뚜렷하게 높습니다. 성향 지수는 종합 13.4(중도 균형)입니다.
Statistical Notices update the definitions and guidance contained in the Banking Statistics Yellow Folder
The Security Service of Ukraine has notified in absentia three more accomplices of the enemy of suspicion for facilitating the pseudo-referendum and the "election of the President of the Russian Federation" in temporarily occupied territory of Luhansk region.
After Saket building collapse killed six, MCD cracks down on illegal constructions, identifies 81 violators. CM Rekha Gupta orders citywide survey and inquiry.
The Lands Tribunal on Tuesday rejected a request by the management company appointed to oversee Wang Fuk Court affairs to postpone an owners’ meeting. Responding to inquiries, the Home Affairs Department said Hop On Management will try its best to facilitate a meeting and safeguard the rights of all homeowners. The department stressed that Hop On has been carrying out its duties according to the law, and that it had sought to delay the meeting mainly because it needed more time to carry out relevant preparatory work. It added that the government will study the ruling which touched on the interpretation of the Building Management Ordinance. The tribunal pointed to difficulties in issuing meeting notices and holding meetings, and recognised efforts by the Home Affairs Department and Hop On in this regard, according to the department. Edited by Edmond Fong
In the Dnipropetrovsk region, law enforcement authorities have served suspicion notices to two servicemen of a regional Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center who threw a man out of a vehicle instead of providing assistance when he fell unwell.
TES and ATAN, which operate the largest fuel station networks in Crimea, have suspended sales of gasoline coupons. Both companies announced the decision in notices posted on their websites.
ISLAMABAD: The National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) on Monday challenged before the Supreme Court its May 12 order that required the Islamabad High Court (IHC) to decide in two weeks the sentence suspension pleas of lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha in the controversial social media posts case. Meanwhile, despite the SC’s May 26 deadline having passed already, the IHC today, on the request of the prosecution, adjourned the hearing of Imaan and Hadi’s pleas seeking suspension of their sentences. The husband-wife duo were sentenced in the case on January 24, with subsequent petitions being filed against their conviction in early February. On May 12, more than three months after the pleas were filed, the SC gave the IHC two weeks to decide on the lawyer couple’s petitions. On Monday, the NCCIA requested the SC to recall and withdraw that order to help preserve the “sanctity and independence of the judiciary, maintaining equality among citizens and avoiding discriminatory treatment towards the couple merely on account of being members of the Bar”. The petition claimed that no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances have been pointed out by the couple in their earlier plea that warranted an intervention by the SC in a pending matter before the IHC. In December 2025, Imaan and her husband had moved the SC to set aside IHC’s decision that denied interim relief in the controversial social media post case. They had argued that the high court had “erroneously and illegally refused” to exercise the discretion to grant ad-interim relief to them to stay the criminal trial, as recording of evidence before the trial court in their absence was not only a violation of Section 353 CrPC, but also their due process and fair trial rights under Article 10A of the Constitution. Now, the NCCIA has contended that the couple had invoked the jurisdiction of the SC under Article 185(3) of the Constitution under the pretext of an “order” in which IHC had issued notices to the respondents with an observation that the contentions raised need consideration. “The issuance of ‘notice’ does not fall in the ambit of Article 185(3) as the appeal can only lie to the Supreme Court from a ‘judgment’, ‘decree’, ‘order’ or ‘sentence of a high court. Hence their appeal was not maintainable,” the petition argued. NCCIA underscored SC’s consistent and long-standing practice of not interfering in matters pending before high courts on the initial/interlocutory stage, except in extraordinary or highly exceptional circumstances. But the couple had approached the SC with the grievance that their applications for early hearing were not fixed or heard. Normally, the superior courts avoid intervention in such matters unless there is a situation where grave illegality is committed, or to foster justice or the matter is of an urgent nature, the petition argued. Every court has its own mechanism for dispensation of justice and also has an independent system to entertain and fix the cases according to the “urgency” pointed out by the applicant. But here, the NCCIA contended, the couple seemed not interested in the fixation of their criminal appeals; rather, they were insistent on getting a decision on their application filed under Section 426 of the CrPC. For that purpose, they filed two applications for early hearing, a fact which was evident from their petition filed before the SC. The couple, the petition claimed, had pleaded violation of Section 353 of the CrPC by the trial court and were playing victim and innocent before the SC by allegedly making their own story to politicise the issue and pressurise the courts, when the proceedings of the trial court belie their assertions. The NCCIA argued that the main grievance of the couple before the SC was that they had been denied a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution, as their two applications for early hearing of applications for suspension of sentence were not fixed. But the SC’s binding order to the IHC seemed to give “special treatment” to Imaan and Hadi for being members of the Bar, the petition feared. The same treatment was accorded to them by the trial court when they remained hostile and derogatory, as the trial court showed “restraint” from passing any adverse order against them, the NCCIA asserted. It further said that before passing any direction to the IHC, the SC should have called for a report of pending appeals and applications for the suspension of the sentences before the high court so that principles of fairness, equality and impartiality were maintained and to avoid an impression of extraordinary treatment to the petitioners. The NCCIA highlighted that the lawyers had also filed petitions against the IHC chief justice alleging harassment, and Imaan’s mother, after the SC hearing, had categorically said that by issuing the May 12 order, the SC had “accepted” the IHC’s bias against her daughter. “Her statement is clearly creating doubts on the independence of judiciary,” the petition said. IHC hearing Earlier in the day, IHC’s Justice Muhammad Azam Khan took up Imaan and Hadi’s pleas today, but the hearing was adjourned due to the absence of two of the three special prosecution team members. The prosecutor who attended the hearing informed the court that one of his team members was travelling from Lahore while another was engaged in proceedings before the IHC chief justice. At that, Justice Khan remarked that he was specifically at the court for the hearing of Imaan’s and Hadi’s pleas despite being nominated for mediation training. Addressing the prosecutor, he asked whether the prosecution was aware of the Supreme Court’s directions in the case. Regarding that, one of the counsels for the petitioners, Advocate Riasat Ali Azad, noted that the deadline set by the Supreme Court had already expired. Justice Khan observed that the petitions had been filed in light of the SC’s May 12 order. Another counsel for the petitioners, Faisal Siddiqui, argued that one of the prosecutors should appear before the court after completing his commitments in the IHC CJ’s court. Justice Khan noted that he had already heard cases in the morning and had even missed his mediation training session scheduled for 8:30am to attend the proceedings of Imaan’s and Hadi’s pleas. The prosecutor requested the court to adjourn the hearing till Thursday or next Monday. After consulting the petitioners’ counsels regarding their availability, Justice Khan fixed the hearing for Thursday, June 4. At that, Siddiqui requested that the prosecution be restrained from seeking any further adjournments. In response, Justice Khan remarked that repeated reminders were unnecessary as all parties were bound to comply with the SC order. The case Imaan and Hadi have been in jail since their arrest in January in a case registered against the two for protesting outside the IHC and allegedly manhandling the IHC Bar Association (IHCBA) president. While the arrest prompted criticism by rights bodies, politicians, and journalists, who stressed the couple’s right to a fair trial, a sessions court sentenced them to 17 years in prison in the social media posts case just a day after the development. The controversy at the centre of the case stems from a complaint filed on August 12, 2025, by the NCCIA Islamabad assistant director (investigating officer) before the Cybercrime Reporting Centre, FIA, under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (Peca). The complaint accused Imaan of disseminating and “propagating narratives that align with hostile terrorist groups and proscribed organisations”, while her husband was implicated for reposting some of her posts. In January, the sessions court sentenced the duo to 10 years’ imprisonment under Section 10 (cyber terrorism), five years’ imprisonment under Section 9 (glorification of an offence) and two years’ imprisonment under Section 26-A (false and fake information) of Peca. Subsequently, they challenged their conviction by filing separate criminal appeals in the IHC on February 7. On April 30, the duo had moved another appeal in the SC, seeking an early hearing of their pleas against their conviction. Moved under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, the application requested the grant of leave to appeal against the Feb 19 IHC order. Through that order, the IHC had admitted the appeal against the trial court’s Jan 24 decision of handing down a 17-year sentence to the couple. And while it had issued notices to the respondents on the application for the suspension of sentence, it had not suspended the sentence. The petition contended that the appeals be accepted and the sentence awarded to the petitioners through the impugned trial court’s judgment be suspended till the disposal of the criminal appeal pending before the IHC. On May 12, the SC asked the IHC to decide within two weeks the pleas seeking the suspension of their sentences. Until the IHC decides upon the petitions, the matter will remain pending before the apex court, a three-judge SC bench, consisting of Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shafi Siddiqui, observed. Then, on May 20, the IHC issued notices to officials of the NCCIA on applications requesting an expedited hearing of the sentence suspension petitions. It was a day after Justice Khan raised objections over the non-submission of certified copies of the SC order and directed the defence counsel to submit the certified order through the court office in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Following the submission of the certified copy, the case was fixed for June 1. But the hearing again had to be adjourned today due to the prosecutors’ absence.
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday adjourned the hearing of sentence suspension petitions filed by human rights lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha in the controversial social media posts case as the Supreme Court directive to decide the pleas by May 26 remained unfulfilled. The Supreme Court directive was issued on May 12, more than three months after the husband-wife duo were sentenced in the case. They had subsequently filed petitions against their conviction in early February. IHC’s Justice Muhammad Azam Khan took up those pleas today, but the hearing was adjourned due to the absence of two of the three special prosecution team members. The prosecutor who attended the hearing informed the court that one of his team members was travelling from Lahore while another was engaged in proceedings before the IHC chief justice. At that, Justice Khan remarked that he was specifically at the court for the hearing of Imaan’s and Hadi’s pleas despite being nominated for mediation training. Addressing the prosecutor, he asked whether the prosecution was aware of the Supreme Court’s directions in the case. Regarding that, one of the counsels for the petitioners, Advocate Riasat Ali Azad,noted that the deadline set by the Supreme Court had already expired. Justice Khan observed that the petitions had been filed in light of the Supreme Court’s order, which required the IHC to decide the sentence suspension applications within two weeks from May 12. Another counsel for the petitioners, Faisal Siddiqui, argued that one of the prosecutors should appear before the court after completing his commitments in the IHC CJ’s court. Justice Khan noted that he had already heard cases in the morning and had even missed his mediation training session scheduled for 8:30am to attend the proceedings of of Imaan’s and Hadi’s pleas. The prosecutor requested the court to adjourn the hearing till Thursday or next Monday. After consulting the petitioners’ counsels regarding their availability, Justice Khan fixed the hearing for Thursday, June 4. At that, Siddiqui requested that the prosecution be restrained from seeking any further adjournments. In response, Justice Khan remarked that repeated reminders were unnecessary as all parties were bound to comply with the Supreme Court order. The case Imaan and Hadi have been in jail since their arrest in January in a case registered against the two for protesting outside the IHC and allegedly manhandling the IHC Bar Association (IHCBA) president. While the arrest prompted criticism by rights bodies, politicians, and journalists, who stressed the couple’s right to a fair trial, a sessions court sentenced them to 17 years in prison in the social media posts case just a day after the development. The controversy at the centre of the case stems from a complaint filed on August 12, 2025, by the NCCIA Islamabad assistant director (investigating officer) before the Cybercrime Reporting Centre, FIA, under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (Peca). The complaint accused Imaan of disseminating and “propagating narratives that align with hostile terrorist groups and proscribed organisations”, while her husband was implicated for reposting some of her posts. In January, the sessions court sentenced the duo to 10 years’ imprisonment under Section 10 (cyber terrorism), five years’ imprisonment under Section 9 (glorification of an offence) and two years’ imprisonment under Section 26-A (false and fake information) of Peca. Subsequently, they challenged their conviction by filing separate criminal appeals in the IHC on February 7. On April 30, the duo had moved another appeal in the SC, seeking an early hearing of their pleas against their conviction. Moved under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, the application requested the grant of leave to appeal against the Feb 19 IHC order. Through that order, the IHC had admitted the appeal against the trial court’s Jan 24 decision of handing down a 17-year sentence to the couple. And while it had issued notices to the respondents on the application for the suspension of sentence, it had not suspended the sentence. The petition contended that the appeals be accepted and the sentence awarded to the petitioners through the impugned trial court’s judgement be suspended till the disposal of the criminal appeal pending before the IHC. On May 12, the Supreme Court asked the IHC to decide within two weeks the pleas seeking the suspension of their sentences. Until the IHC decides upon the petitions, the matter will remain pending before the apex court, a three-judge SC bench, consisting of Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shafi Siddiqui, observed. Then, on May 20, the IHC issued notices to officials of the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) on applications requesting an expedited hearing of the sentence suspension petitions. It was a day after Justice Khan raised objections over the non-submission of certified copies of the Supreme Court order and directed the defence counsel to submit the certified order through the court office in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Following the submission of the certified copy, the case was fixed for June 1. But, the hearing again had to be adjourned today due to the prosectors’ absence.
Shares of renewable energy player Suzlon Energy fall 2.2% to Rs 55.87 on the BSE on Monday after capital markets regulator Sebi levied penalties totalling nearly Rs 29 crore on Suzlon Energy and several former executives. Sebi concluded that the company misrepresented its financial position through transactions involving subsidiaries, inflated profits and inadequate disclosures.In a 96-page order issued on May 29, Sebi said Suzlon and certain former executives violated provisions of the Sebi Act, PFUTP Regulations, listing regulations and disclosure requirements. The order replaces an earlier adjudication order issued in June 2025 and confirms multiple violations by the company and its executives.Among the penalised individuals, former executive Vinod R. Tanti was fined Rs 5.75 crore, while Girish R. Tanti was directed to pay Rs 5.45 crore. Former Group CFO Kirti J. Vagadia was fined Rs 1.5 crore and former CFO Amit Agarwal was fined Rs 30 lakh.The matter stemmed from an anonymous complaint received by Sebi in December 2019 alleging irregularities in transactions involving Suzlon's subsidiaries and associate entities. A subsequent forensic audit and investigation covering FY15 to FY20 and the first nine months of FY21 examined several issues, including dealings with subsidiaries, impairment reversals, contingent liabilities and financial statement disclosures.Sensex, Nifty today: Catch all the LIVE stock market action hereOne key observation related to the transfer of Suzlon's operations and maintenance services business to its subsidiary, Suzlon Global Services Ltd, in March 2014. Sebi noted that the business, valued at around Rs 77 crore, was transferred for Rs 2,000 crore, resulting in Suzlon recording an accounting gain of Rs 1,922.92 crore.According to the regulator, the subsidiary lacked the financial capacity to fund the transaction. Sebi found that a significant portion of the consideration was subsequently reflected as paid through circular movement of funds between the two entities. The regulator said the arrangement created artificial profits and inflated the company's net worth. It observed that Suzlon's FY14 net worth would have been Rs 741 crore without the transaction, compared with the reported figure of Rs 2,664 crore.Sebi further noted that Suzlon later booked an additional gain of Rs 829.78 crore by transferring its stake in the subsidiary to another wholly owned entity, effectively recognising profit a second time on the same underlying assets. According to the regulator, these transactions helped the company portray a stronger financial position and supported subsequent fund-raising and restructuring efforts.The order also addressed a standby letter of credit connected to loans taken by a foreign subsidiary. Sebi said a contingent liability of about $569 million, or roughly Rs 4,050 crore, which had been disclosed in FY17, was not reflected in FY18 contingent liability disclosures after being reclassified under an accounting standard related to insurance contracts. The regulator held that the treatment was inappropriate and materially reduced the visibility of the company's financial exposure.In addition, Sebi reviewed investments and loans involving subsidiaries SE Forge Ltd and Suzlon Gujarat Wind Park. It found that several transactions involved circular routing of funds, conversion of loans into equity and later impairment of investments. According to the regulator, these transactions resulted in financial statements that did not accurately represent the underlying economic substance.Sebi concluded that the company's financial statements and disclosures failed to present a true and fair view of its financial position. The regulator said financial statements and disclosures form the basis on which investors and other market participants assess a listed company's financial health and prospects.While Sebi noted that disproportionate gains and investor losses could not be quantified with precision, it said the violations were serious because they related to financial information disseminated to investors and relied upon by the market.Sebi imposed the penalties under provisions relating to fraudulent and unfair trade practices, disclosure lapses and violations of listing obligations. The notices must pay the penalties within 45 days of receiving the order.(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of The Economic Times)
According to the DM, notices were served to all affected persons and adequate opportunities were provided for them to present their cases
New Delhi [India]: The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has imposed a penalty of Rs 7 lakh on Vajiram and Ravi IAS Study Centre LLP for allegedly publishing misleading advertisements and concealing material information related to the success of candidates in the UPSC Civil Services Examination (CSE).According to a press release issued by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, the final order was passed by the CCPA, headed by Chief Commissioner Nidhi Khare and Commissioner Anupam Mishra, after the authority found that the coaching institute had prominently advertised the achievements of successful UPSC CSE 2023 candidates without disclosing the specific courses undertaken by those candidates.According to the press release, the institute had claimed on its official website that "8 Rank Holders in the Top 10 are from Vajiram & Ravi", "37 Rank Holders in the Top 50 are from Vajiram & Ravi", and that "more than 30 per cent of the officers selected through UPSC Civil Services Examination are students of Vajiram & Ravi" every year.The CCPA's investigation reportedly found that seven of the eight top-10 rank holders and 29 of the 37 candidates in the top 50 had enrolled only in the institute's free Interview Guidance Programme (IGP).Also Read: Nearly 5.49 lakh candidates appeared in civil services preliminary exam: UPSCThe authority further noted that a large majority of successful candidates associated with the institute in recent years had participated only in the IGP. According to the findings cited in the press release, 86.36 per cent of successful candidates in 2021, 78.31 per cent in 2022, 97.56 per cent in 2023, and 71.69 per cent in 2024 had enrolled solely in the interview guidance programme.The CCPA observed that the Interview Guidance Programme begins only after candidates independently clear the Preliminary and Mains stages of the UPSC examination. By featuring such candidates in advertisements for comprehensive coaching programmes without clarifying the nature of their enrolment, the institute allegedly created the impression that their success was attributable to its full-length coaching courses.The authority held that the non-disclosure of important information regarding the courses opted for by successful candidates amounted to a misleading advertisement under Section 2(28)(iv) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and violated consumers' right to be informed under Section 2(9) of the Act, the release said.The press release stated that the CCPA has so far issued more than 60 notices to coaching institutes for misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices and has imposed penalties exceeding Rs 1.46 crore on coaching centres preparing students for examinations such as UPSC, IIT-JEE, NEET, RBI and other competitive tests.
Show-cause notices issued to 26 dealers and sale of fertilisers suspended at 10 outlets over alleged violations
The Government School Teachers' Association wrote to the Delhi Education Minister Ashish Sood, claiming teachers must not be blamed for faulty OSM
Officers of the Security Service of Ukraine (SSU) have documented the illegal activities of another 12 individuals who voluntarily cooperate with the enemy while serving as "deputies" in the temporarily occupied part of the Donetsk region.
The Office for National Statistics ( ONS ) said firms were giving notices of planned lay-offs at a rate of 8,900 a week, 76 per cent up on the same period last year.
MANILA, Philippines — The Senate blue ribbon committee will resume its hearings into the flood control scandal on Thursday, June 4, Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano said on Friday. “Senator [Rodante] Marcoleta will issue the notices on Monday to continue on Thursday the flood control scam hearings,” Cayetano said in a Facebook livestream. READ: Lacson:
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has fixed June 1 for hearing the sentence suspension applications filed by human rights lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha in the social media posts case. As per a one-page written order issued by IHC’s Justice Muhammad Azam Khan, following last week’s hearing, a certified copy of the Supreme Court’s May 12 order had been submitted. It should be noted that the SC had directed the IHC on May 12 to decide within two weeks on Imaan and Hadi’s pleas seeking the suspension of their sentence. On May 20, the IHC had issued notices to officials of the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) on applications requesting an expedited hearing of the sentence suspension petitions. Earlier this month, the judge had raised objections over the non-submission of certified copies of the SC order and directed the defence counsel to submit the certified order through the court office in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Following the submission of the certified copy, the case was fixed for June 1, while the IHC’s registrar office also issued the cause list for next week’s hearing. The case Imaan and Hadi have been in jail since their arrest in January in a case registered against the two for protesting outside the IHC and allegedly manhandling the IHC Bar Association (IHCBA) president. While the arrest prompted criticism by rights bodies, politicians, and journalists, who stressed the couple’s right to a fair trial, a sessions court sentenced them to 17 years in prison in the social media posts case just a day after the development. The controversy at the centre of the case stems from a complaint filed on August 12, 2025, by the NCCIA Islamabad assistant director (investigating officer) before the Cybercrime Reporting Centre, FIA, under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (Peca). The complaint accused Imaan of disseminating and “propagating narratives that align with hostile terrorist groups and proscribed organisations”, while her husband was implicated for reposting some of her posts. In January, the sessions court sentenced the duo to 10 years’ imprisonment under Section 10 (cyber terrorism), five years’ imprisonment under Section 9 (glorification of an offence) and two years’ imprisonment under Section 26-A (false and fake information) of Peca. In December 2025, the couple moved the SC to overturn the IHC’s decision refusing interim relief in the case. The appeal was filed against a December 1 IHC order that denied ad-interim relief of staying the trial without a just legal cause. In her appeal, Imaan argued that the high court had “erroneously and illegally refused” to exercise the discretion to grant ad-interim relief to the petitioners to stay the criminal trial, as recording of evidence before the trial court in their absence was not only a violation of Section 353 CrPC, but also their due process and fair trial rights under Article 10A of the Constitution. On May 11, their counsel submitted additional documents to the SC in relevance to the appeal, consisting of the charge sheets of different dates against the petitioners, their statements before the trial court and the orders issued by the court. The petitioners pleaded before the SC to allow bringing these documents on record in the interest of justice since they were “essential and relevant for adjudication of the present case”. They explained that the said documents were not available at the time of filing the appeal, since the paper books were not prepared by the office of the IHC; the trial record was obtained after filing the appeals. On April 30, the duo had moved another appeal in the SC, seeking an early hearing of their pleas against their conviction. Moved under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, the application requested the grant of leave to appeal against the Feb 19 IHC order. Through that order, the IHC had admitted the appeal against the trial court’s Jan 24 decision of handing down a 17-year sentence to the couple. And while it had issued notices to the respondents on the application for the suspension of sentence, it had not suspended the sentence. The petition contended that the appeals be accepted and the sentence awarded to the petitioners through the impugned trial court’s judgement be suspended till the disposal of the criminal appeal pending before the IHC.
The Delhi High Court has issued notices to the Union government and social media platform X regarding the suspension of the Cockroach Janta Party's account. The party's X handle gained viral attention following a campaign linked to a controversial remark by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, who later clarified his statement.
Mumbai: After a crushing court defeat, India's money gaming fraternity is now dreading whether the taxman would come after the companies' directors.The law allows the goods and service tax (GST) authorities to recover dues from board members of private limited companies if unpaid tax, interest, or penalty cannot be salvaged from the entities.Most real money gaming platforms were run by closely-held companies. While a director can escape personal liability if he demonstrates that the unpaid tax was not caused by gross neglect and wilful misstatement, many show cause notices, which triggered the legal feud, allege fraud and suppression of facts.Also read | Billionaire's FOMO: Ultra-rich pouring money into AI stackIn cases of frauds, the tax office can levy penalty of 100% of the tax demand. Platform managements are hoping for some relief from the fine print in Wednesday's Supreme Court (SC) judgement which upheld GST authorities stand to impose 28% tax on full value of bets. The ruling is yet to be released.By validating the SCNs, the SC effectively overturned earlier lower court rulings favouring gaming companies and dismissed the argument that 'games of skill' require different tax treatment under the GST framework for actionable claims.The GST Act provides for extended limitation period, enabling the department to issue SCNs up to five years from the due date of filing the relevant annual return in cases of fraud.131377275According to Ritesh Kanodia, partner, Aurtus Consulting, "There is strong legal support, including Supreme Court rulings, that when a matter involves a complex interpretation of the law, it cannot be treated as fraud or suppression. In this case, there was genuine ambiguity on whether GST applies at all and, if it does, on what value. Even the Karnataka High Court had earlier ruled in favour of taxpayers, which shows that the issue was debatable. Because of this, there is a strong argument that the 100% penalty may not be justified, thoughthe normal penalty (around 10%) may still apply."Ashish Karundia, founder of the eponymous CA firm, agreed that notices invoking the extended limitation period can certainly be challenged. "To sustain demands under Section 74, the department must establish fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression with intent to evade tax. Gaming companies are likely to argue that their operations, filings, and transaction trails were fully disclosed, and that the dispute pertains purely to legal interpretation rather than any concealment of facts," said Karundia.If the department eventually chases the directors, it has to send separate notices and examine their roles individually.Also read | A blueprint for West Bengal’s evolution from an entrepot to a production hubHowever, for earlier periods (July 2017 to March 2020), companies may be eligible for the Government's amnesty scheme, which provides a full waiver of interest and penalties, provided fraud is not established (i.e., a Section 74 notice [100% penalty] gets converted into a Section 73 Notice [10% penalty]). So, in many cases, companies may ultimately end up paying only the tax amount, said Kanodia.The companies have sought 12 weeks to reply to the adjudication panel in the GST department which would be followed by final tax demands and appeals before higher courts.The GST law was amended in 2023 to make online gaming, casinos, and horse racing taxable at 28% on the full face value of bets, regardless of whether it's game of skill or chance. These changes, applied retrospectively, imposed liabilities for past periods when the law was not explicit. Before 2023 companies were paying 18% tax on the fees platforms collected.Last year, the government hurriedly enacted the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming (PROG) Act, 2025 that completely prohibits online money games. The SC order on Wednesday not only puts a large financial burden on gaming companies but may also weaken their argument that since gaming is a state subject, the activity cannot be banned by a central law.
Redundancy notices and sentiment survey land in inboxes on same day in what tech services biz calls 'commitment to listen'