Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Cutting on CTS Cheques Not allowed wef 01.01.2013



If you have been wondering why your bank has been repeatedly sending you text messages and emails to change your old cheque book, even though you have plenty of leaves left, here’s the answer:

From January 1, India will move to a faster, more efficient and secure payment settlement system in which banks will only honour cheques embedded with new features.(read about New Cheque system)

Under the new Cheque Truncation System ( CTS) ( see graphic), cheques will be cleared in a day — against three days taken on an average at present.

The system has had a successful pilot run in a few pockets after the Reserve Bank of India ( RBI) issued the roadmap for migrating to the new structure in a circular issued last December.

The CTS will do away with the need for physical movement of cheques from a bank branch to a clearing house before the amount is credited to the customer’s account. Instead, entrenched with standardised features such as watermarks and a pantograph, cheques will be cleared electronically through an encrypted and highly secure online gateway.

Besides cutting down on time, the new system will also eliminate clearing- related frauds and help slash banks’ manpower and administrative costs by eliminating some steps.

Prohibiting alterations / corrections on cheques : No changes / corrections should be carried out on the cheques (other than for date validation purposes, if required). For any change in the payee’s name, courtesy amount (amount in figures) or legal amount (amount in words), etc., fresh cheque forms should be used by customers. This would help banks to identify and control fraudulent alterations.This rule will applicable on branches in which CTS clearing system will start wef 01.01.2013 
Source:HT/RBI


Read more: http://www.simpletaxindia.net/2012/12/cutting-on-cts-cheques-not-allowed-wef.html#ixzz2E9VBVrDN

Monday, December 3, 2012

Frequently Asked Questions on Appointment of Cost Auditor by Companies


FAQ’s on Appointment of Cost Auditor and Draft of letters as required to be submitted by Cost Auditor in terms of MCA Circular
Q.1   Has the Government prescribed a new procedure for  appointment of cost auditor by the companies?
Ans.  Yes. The procedure has been modified by the Cost Audit Branch of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide General Circular No. 15/2011 dated 11th April 2011. The circular shall be effective from the financial year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2011.
Q.2   What is the difference between new and old procedures of Appointment of Cost Auditor by Companies?
Ans. Existing procedure for appointment of cost auditor required prior approval of the Central Government under Section 233B (2) of the Companies Act, 1956.
However, under the present procedure, the prior approval would be deemed to have been granted if the Central Government does not raise any query within 1 month of filing of Form 23C.
Q.3    Will this procedure supercede the previous order issued in this regard?
Ans. Yes, with the issue of this new procedure, all earlier circulars issued with respect to the Appointment of Cost Auditor by Companies will be superceded.
Q.4    Who can act as cost auditor?
Ans.  The Company required to get its cost records audited under Section 233B(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 shall appoint a cost auditor who is a Cost Accountant as defined in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Cost and Works Accountants Act, 1959 (23 of 1959) and who holds a valid certificate of practice under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of that Act and includes a Firm of Cost Accountants.
Q.5     Who is competent authority in companies to appoint cost auditor?
Ans. The first point of reference will be the Audit Committee and the Board of Directors will appoint Cost Auditor on the basis of recommendation of the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee shall ensure that the cost auditor is free from any disqualification as specified under Section 233B(5) read with Section 224 and sub-section (3) or sub-section (4)  of Section 226 of the Companies Act, 1956. [Draft model letter in this regard is given after FAQs at Annexure -1]
In those companies where constitution of an Audit  Committee of the Board is not required by law, the words “Audit Committee” shall stand substituted by the words “Board of Directors”.
Q.6   Is a cost auditor required to give any certificate in respect to his independence and arm’s length relationship with the appointing company?
Ans. Yes, the cost auditor is required to give a separate certificate to the audit committee in respect to his/its independence and arm’s length relationship with the company. [Draft model letter in this regard is given after FAQs at Annexure-2]
Q.7.  How many cost auditors can be appointed under Section 224 (1B)?
Ans. Section 224 (1B) imposes a ceiling on the numbers of audits that an auditor or firm of auditors can undertake. Accordingly, the ceiling on the number of cost audits would operate as follows:
(a)  In case a firm of cost accountants:-  Twenty companies (other than private companies) for every such partner of the firm who is not in full time employment. Not more than ten out of twenty companies should have a paid up share capital of Rs. 25 lakh or more.
(b)  In case of individual cost accountant who is in full time employment:- Twenty companies (other than private companies) of which not more than ten should have a paid up share capital of Rs. 25 lakh or more.
Q.8   What procedure is required to be followed by a company in respect of appointment of cost auditor?
Ans. The Company shall e-file its application with the  Central Government on www.mca.gov.in portal, in the prescribed Form 23C within ninety (90) days from the date of commencement of each financial year, along with the prescribed fee as per the Companies (Fees on Application) Rules, 1999 as amended from time to time and other documents as per existing practice i.e.
(i) certified copy of the Board Resolution proposing appointment of cost auditor; and
(ii) copy of the certificate obtained from the cost auditor regarding compliance of section 224 (1-B) of the Companies Act, 1956. [Draft Letter as per Annexure 1]
Q.9  What will happen if Central Government doesn’t give its approval within 30 days of submission/ re-submission of the application?
Ans. After filing the online application by the Company, the same shall be deemed to be approved by the  Central Government, unless contrary is heard within thirty (30) days from the date of filing such application.
However, if within thirty(30) days from the date of filing such application, the Central Government directs the Company to re-submit the said application with such additional information or explanation, as  may be specified in that direction, the period of thirty days for deemed approval of the Central Government shall be counted from the date of re-submission by the Company.
Q.10    How cost auditor will be appointed?
Ans. After compliance of the matters hereinabove described, the Board of Directors of the Company shall issue formal letter of appointment to the cost auditor, as approved by the Board of Directors.
Q. 11  What is the obligation of appointed cost auditor with respect to the information to Central Government
Ans. The Cost Auditor shall inform the Central Government within thirty days of receipt of formal letter of appointment from the Company. Such intimation shall be done in the prescribed form alongwith a copy of such appointment. An e-form is being developed by the Ministry and the same will be notified shortly.
Q. 12   Is there any obligation on the part of companies regarding disclosure of appointment of cost auditor?
Ans. The Company shall disclose full particulars of the cost auditor along with the due date and actual date of filing of the Cost Audit Report by the cost auditor, in its Annual Report for each relevant financial year. Since the notification has come into effect from April 1, 2011, companies under cost audit will be required to furnish the details in its Annual Report from the financial year 2010-11.
Since the cost audit report of a particular financial year may not have been submitted before publication of the Annual Report, relevant details of due and actual date of filing for the last financial year may be published in the Annual Report.
Q. 13   Is there any penalty provision for non-compliance of provisions of the said circular?
Ans.  Yes, the circular states penal provisions both for companies and cost auditor as under:
• Non compliance by Companies
If a Company contravenes any provision of this circular, the company and every officer thereof who is in default, including the persons referred to in subsection (6) of Section 209 of the Act shall be punishable as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 642 read with sub-section (5) and (7) of Section 209 and sub-section (11) of Section 233B of Companies Act, 1956.
Relevant provisions of Section 209 of the Companies Act, 1956 are as follows:
Sub- section (5) of Section 209 provides that if any of the persons referred to in sub-section (6) fails to take all reasonable steps to secure compliance by the company with the requirements of this section, or has by his own wilful act been the cause of any default by the company thereunder, he shall, in respect of each offence, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both:
Provided that in any proceedings against a person in respect of an offence under this section consisting of a failure to take reasonable steps to secure compliance by the company with the requirements of this section, it shall be a defence to prove that a competent and reliable person was charged with the duty of seeking that those requirements were complied with and was in a position to discharge that duty:
Provided further that no person shall be sentenced to imprisonment for any such offence unless it was committed wilfully.
Sub- section (6) of Section 209 provides that the persons referred to in subsection (5) are the following, namely:—
(a) where the company has a managing director or manager, such managing director or manager and all officers and other employees of the company; and
(d) where the company has neither a managing director nor manager, every director of the company;
Sub- section (7) of Section 209 provides that  if any person, not being a person referred to in sub-section (6), having been charged by the managing director, manager or Board of directors, as the case may be,  with the duty of seeing that the requirements of this section are complied with makes default in doing so, he shall, in respect of each offence, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which my extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.
Relevant provision of  Section 642 of the Companies Act 1956 is as under:
Sub-section (2) of Section 642 provides that any rule made under sub-section
(1) may provide that a contravention thereof shall  be punishable with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees and where the contravention is a continuing one, with a further fine which may extend to five hundred rupees for every day after the first during which such contravention continues.
• Non compliance by Cost Auditor
If default is made by the cost auditor in complying with the aforesaid provisions, he shall be punishable with fine, which may extend to five thousand rupees.

DRAFT Letter
Annexure-1
Ref. No. ___________
Date: ____________

To
The Chairman
Audit Committee of Board of Directors  ______ Limited,

Dear Sir,

Sub: Cost Audit of XXX Limited for the year ending 31st March 201_ .

This has reference to my/our proposed appointment/reappointment as Cost Auditor of your company for the financial year ending on 31st March 201_. I/We shall be happy to accept the appointment/ re-appointment as Cost Auditor of your Company, if so made by your Board of Directors.

We would like to inform you that we are free from any disqualifications as specified under Section 233B (5) read with Section 224 and sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of Section 226 of the Companies Act, 1956.

We would like to further inform you that the appointment, if made, will be within the limits prescribed under Section 224(1B) read with sub-section (2) of Section 233B of the Companies Act, 1956.

We would also like to inform you that the Partners are holding Certificate of Practice issued by the Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India and are in whole time practice.

We request you to please send us the formal appointment letter as per clause (i) of General Circular No. 15/2011 [52/5/CAB-2011] dated April 11, 2011 issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Cost Audit Branch to enable us to do the needful at our end.

We would like draw your attention towards clause (k) of the above circular, wherein it is obligatory on the part of the Company to disclose full particulars of cost auditor, alongwith the due date and actual date of filing of the Cost Audit Report by the cost auditor, in your Annual Report for each relevant financial year.

Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,

(_________)

DRAFT Letter
Annexure-2

Ref. No. ___________
Date: ____________

To
The Chairman
Audit Committee of Board of Directors
______ Limited,

Dear Sir,
Sub: Certificate of Independence – Cost Audit of your Company for the year ending 31st  March 201_ reg.

With reference to para (e) of the General Circular  No. 15/2011 dated 11.04.2011 issued by the Cost Audit Branch of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, we hereby certify that we are an independent firm of Cost Accountants and are at arm’s length relationship with your Company.

Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
(_______)


Penalties for Non Compliance with Appointment of Cost Auditor



Cost Auditor’s Appointment: Penalties for Non Compliance with respect to Appointment of Cost Auditor Notified
29th June, 2012 was the Last date of filing Form 23C relating to appointment of Cost Auditor (for the financial year 2012-13)  with MCA, GOI
The period of August and September is normally very busy for the accounting as the finalisation of accounts is done by maximum companies in this period only. As the Finance heads are busy with the finalisations of the books of accounts, they may skip some of the important notifications which may have an implication on the finances and regulatory compliances.
Recently Ministry of Corporate Affairs issued the following notification on 7th August, 2012.
By way of issuing the above notification, the MCA has imposed penalties on delay in the filing of requisite documents/forms with Ministry. Through this website, awareness was created by way of publishing many articles relating to the applicability of Cost Audits and last date of filing of Form 23C.
Now MCA has issued Notification GSR 617(E) dtd 07/08/2012 paving the way for imposition of penalties for not filing Forms in time. As the filing of form 23C (From for Appointment of Cost Auditor) needs to be done for the first time by many companies, they were taking a relaxed approach but with the issue of penal notification, the Form 23C with regard to the appointment of Cost Auditor should be filed immediately for the year 2011-12 and 2012-13 immediately.
Please note that normally Form 23C for appointment of cost auditor has to be e-filed on MCA portal within 90 days of the commencement of the financial year not after the close of the financial year.
The details of the the companies/Industries covered under Cost Audit during 2011-12 are given below:
MCA had introduced new Cost Audit Report Rules in June 2011 and had brought various companies under Cost Audit by way of various Cost Audit orders  as given below :
Date of orderIndustries Covered BroadlyApplicability -ConditionsYear for which applicable
2ndMay 20111) Cost Accounting Records (Bulk Drugs) Rules, 19742) Cost Accounting Records (Formulations) Rules, 19883)  Cost Accounting Records (Fertilizers) Rules, 19934) Cost Accounting Records (Sugar) Rules, 19975) Cost Accounting Records (Industrial Alchohal) Rules, 19976)  Cost Accounting Records (Electricity Industry) Rules, 20017) Cost Accounting Records (Petroleum Industry) Rules, 20028) Cost Accounting Records (Telecommunications) Rules, 2002a)     Aggregate Value of networth as on the last day of immediately preceding financial year year exceeds Rs. 5 Crores, orb)     wherein the aggregate value of the turnover made by the company from sale orsupply of all products or activitiesduring the immediately preceding financial year exceedstwenty croresof rupees;orc)      wherein the company’s equity or debt securities are listed or are in the process of listing on any stock exchange, whether in India or outside India2011-12
3rdMay 2011The order was modified vide order dated 30/06/2011
30thJune 2011
Product/Industry under Cost AuditHSN Classification/
Central Excise Tariff Act
CementChapter 25, 38 and 68
Tyres and TubesChapter 40
SteelChapter 72 and 73
PaperChapter 47 and 48
Insecticides*Chapter 38
GlassChapter 70
Paints and varnishesChapter 32
AluminumChapter 25

a)      Companies having turnover exceeding Rs 100 crores in the immediately preceding financial year
b)      Companies whose equity or debt securities are listed or are in the process of listing
2011-12
24thJan 2012
Name of IndustryRelevant Chapter Heading of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985
Jute, Cotton,silk,woolen,or blended fibres/textilesChapter 50 to 63
Edible Oil seeds and Oils (incl. Vanaspati)Chapter 12 and 15
Packaged Food ProductsChapter 2 to 25 (except chapters 5,6,14,23 and24)
Organic and Inorganic ChemicalsChapter 28, 29, 32, 38 and 39
Coal & ligniteChapter 27
Mining & metallurgy of ferrous and no ferrous metalsChapters 26 and 74 to 83 (except Chapters 76 and 77)
Tractors & other motor vehicles (incl. automotive components)Chapter 84, 85 and 87
Plantation ProductsChapter 8, 9, 21 and 40
Engineering machinery (incl. electrical & electronic products)Chapters 84 and 85

a)      Companies having turnover exceeding Rs 100 crores in the immediately preceding financial year
b)      Companies whose equity or debt securities are listed or are in the process of listing
2012-13
The company coming under cost audit purview should have  within ninety days of the commencement of every financial year, filed an application with the Central Government seeking prior approval for appointment of the cost auditor, through electronic mode, in the prescribed form, along with the prescribed fee as per the Companies (Fees on Applications) Rules, 1999, and requisite enclosures. However, where a company is covered under cost audit for the first time vide cost audit order dated 30th June 2011, the period of 90 days shall be counted from the date of this order. Every company is required to follow the procedure prescribed vide Ministry of Corporate Affairs’ General Circular No. 15/2011 [File No. 52/5/CAB-2011] dated April 11, 2011.
Till 6th aug 2012, there were no penal provisions in the Companies (Fees on Applications) Rules, 1999 for delay in filing of Forms but from 07 Aug 2012, the penal provisions have been made applicable which are given below:
Period of DelayFee Payable with the Application
Upto 30 daysTwo times of normal fee
More than 30 days and upto 60 daysFour times of normal fee
More than 60 days and upto 90 daysSix times of normal fee
More than 90 daysNine times of normal fee
 Normal fee as per the Companies (Fees on Applications) Rules, 1999 is given below:
 Fees. -
(1)   Every application made to the Central Government in respect of a company proposed to be registered pursuant to a licence under section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956, or by a company (including a foreign company as defined in section 591 of the said Act), under any provision (other than sub-section (1-D) of section 108 or clause (b) of sub-section (7) of section 555) of the said Act, shall be accompanied by appropriate fee specified in the Table below :
For Applications madeAmount of fees to be paid (Rs.)
(i)By a company having an authorised share capital of :-
(a)Less than Rs. 25,00,000500
(b)Rs. 25,00,000 or more but less than Rs. 5 crores1,000
(c)Rs. 5 crores or more2,000
(ii)By a company limited by guarantee but not having a share capital500
(iii)By an Association or proposed company for issue of licence under section 25 of the Act500
(iv)By a company having a valid licence issued under section 25 of the Act500
(v)By a foreign company1,000
 It means that if the company which was covered under Cost Audit for the year 2011-12, but did not file Form 23C in time will now have to pay Rs 20000 (18000 as penalty and 2000 Fee) because delay for the 2nd May order and 30th June Cost Audit order would have exceeded 90 days limit.
However the companies covered under Cost Audit order dated 24 Jan 2012 may still save some penalty by filing the Form 23C immediately as 90 days have not passed after 29th June 2012 (Due date of filing Form 23C)
———————-
Navneet Kumar Jain
FCMA., MBA., LL.B., M.COM., PGDTL., AIIISLA., LIII
Practising Cost Accountant
Mobile- 9810175020

Clarification on Appointment of Cost Auditor & Applicability of Cost Audit


Appointment of Cost Auditor by Companies
Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide General Circular No. 36/2012 dated 6th November 2012, clarified some of the issues relating to e-form Nos 23C and 23D with respect to death of existing cost auditor, resignation or change of cost auditor and additional fee thereof etc. It clarifies the following issues:
  1. In case of death of existing cost auditor, companies are allowed to file fresh e-form 23C, without any additional fee, within 90 days of the date of death.
  2. In case of change of cost auditor for reasons other than death of the existing cost auditor, companies are required to file fresh e-form 23C with applicable fee & additional fee clearly specifying the reasons of change.
  3. If there is error in filing the e-form 23C or 23D due to typographical errors or other mistakes, there is no provision in MCA21 system, which may allow such correction. The circular cautioned members to be careful while filing e-forms 23C or 23D. In rare case, if still any error or mistake is observed, it should be brought to the notice of MCA well before approval, enabling it to return the said form for re-submission. Else, the companies and cost auditors are required to file the fresh e-forms and pay applicable fee and additional fee.
Cost Audit Order dated 6th November 2012
Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide its Cost Audit Order No. 52/26/CAB-2010 dated 6th November 2012 superseded Cost Audit Orders dated 2nd May 2011, 3rd May 2011, 30th June 2011 and 24th January 2012 and directed all companies covered in Cost Accounting Records (Industry Specific) Rules 2011 and Companies (Cost Accounting Records) Rules 2011 are required to get the cost audit done under this cost audit order for the products or activities Groups given in Table-I and Table-2 respectively, in respect of each of its financial year commencing on or after the 1st day of January 2013, audited by a cost auditor.
Source- ICWAI

Criminal proceedings on Cheque signature mismatch :SC


A person may face  if a cheque issued by him gets dishonoured on the ground that his signature does not match the specimen signature available with the bank, the Supreme Court has said.

A bench of justices T S Thakur and Gyan Sudha Mishra set aside the verdict of Gujarat High Courtwhich had held that criminal proceedings for dishonouring of cheque can be initiated only when the cheque is dishonoured because of lack of sufficient amount in the bank account and not in case where a cheque is returned due to mismatch of signature of account holder.

"Just as dishonour of a cheque on the ground that the account has been closed is a dishonour falling in the first contingency referred to in Section 138 of Negotiable

Instrument Act, so also dishonour on the ground that the 'signatures do not match' or that the 'image is not found', which too implies that the specimen signatures do not match the signatures on the cheque would constitute a dishonour within the meaning of Section 138 of the Act," the bench said.

The apex court, however, said that in such cases of dishonouring of cheques, the account holder must be given a notice and an opportunity to arrange the payments before initiation of criminal proceedings against him.

"Dishonour on account of such changes that may occur in the course of ordinary business of a company, partnership or an individual may not constitute an offence by itself because such a dishonour in order to qualify for prosecution under Section 138 shall have to be preceded by a statutory notice where the drawer is called upon and has the opportunity to arrange the payment of the amount covered by the cheque," it said.

"It is only when the drawer despite receipt of such a notice and despite the opportunity to make the payment within the time stipulated under the statute does not pay the amount that the dishonour would be considered a dishonour constituting an offence, hence punishable," the apex court said.

The High Court had taken the view that dishonour of a cheque on the ground that the signatures of the drawer of the cheque do not match the specimen signatures available with the bank, would not attract the penal provisions of the Act.

The High Court had said that the provisions of Section 138 were attracted only in cases where a cheque is dishonoured either because the amount of money standing to the credit to the account maintained by the drawer was insufficient to pay the cheque amount or the cheque amount exceeded the amount arranged to be paid from the account maintained by the drawer by an agreement made with the bank