GKB Ophthalmics MD, chairman, board of directors and AGM

• Tax disputeAssistant commissioner of Commercial TaxSince 20 Mar 2012
  In FY 2011-12, the DRI authorities had seized the documents of the entity and during the same year VAT audit was conducted for FY 2008-09, by the sales tax department. During year 2008-09 there was export sales for which the sales tax commissioner asked for the original documents. Since the documents were seized by DRI, the entity was not able to produce the same to Sales Tax Commissioner. Thus, the sales tax commissioner has raised demand, by considering the export sales as Interstate sales and levied CST on the same. Mapusa Ward (CTO, ACCT) had raised the order against which the company has filed an Appeal to Appellate Authority (Panjim), who has forwarded the case to Mapusa Ward for Re-assessment and Mapusa Ward has not yet given the notice to the Company regarding the re-assessment. The Company is awaiting for the response from Mapusa Ward. Further, there were no updates on this case during the quarter.MoreLess
  At the filing before: Export sales considered as local taxable sales due to non-availability of documents
• Tax disputeCustoms, Excise and Service Tax Applellate Tribunal (CESTAT)Since 12 Apr 2016
  The Company was subjected to a Customs, Excise, and Service Tax (DRI) investigation concerning alleged misclassification of goods, excess Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) sales and failure to fully meet conditions of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP). The Order-in-Original (No. GOA-EXCUS-000-COM-022-15-16 dated 12.04.2016) passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Goa, imposed duty, interest, and penalties on the company. The Company appealed this order before CESTAT (Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) . In this matter an Order-in-Original was issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Goa imposing a total differential duty of Rs. 2,66,66,750/-and the balance Rs. 3,11,76,395/- was dropped. The Company has made an appeal to CESTAT authorities wherein the Company has sufficient grounds to further reduce this liability.The Company also filed a refund claim of Rs.23,38,236/-being the balance pre-deposit dated 27.06.2016 paid at the time of filing appeal before Hon’ble CESTAT under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Custom Department sanctioned the refund of Rs. 36,55,832/- (pre-deposit of Rs.23,38,236/- and interest of Rs.13,17,596/- which was received by the Company.MoreLess
  At the filing before: Concessional Duty on DTA Sales not allowed (including interest and penalty). (Gross of deposit of Rs.44 Lakhs)
• Tax disputeCommissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals)Since 25 Mar 2016
  There was dividend income in AY 13-14 and 14-15. The department is contesting that the amount invested is out of borrowed funds and the interest expense on borrowed funds, which the entity has claimed as deduction, is partly disallowed by the department. However, the entity is contesting that the investment in subsidiary is made out of the shareholders fund and not from the borrowed funds. Currently the matter is under appeal with CIT(A) ( Commissioner Appeals)-Further during the FY 22-23 entity received the order partly in favour of GKB Ophthalnmics limited by which demand has been reduced to 12.71 lakhs from 19.48 lakhs for AY 14-15, to which the Company has further filed an appeal.MoreLess
• Tax disputeCommissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals)Since 7 Apr 2016
  There was dividend income in AY 13-14 and 14-15. The department is contesting that the amount invested is out of borrowed funds and the interest expense on borrowed funds, which the entity has claimed as deduction, is partly disallowed by the department. However, the entity is contesting that the investment in subsidiary is made out of the shareholders fund and not from the borrowed funds. Currently the matter is under appeal with CIT(A) ( Commissioner Appeals)-Further during the FY 22-23 entity received the order partly in favour of GKB Ophthalnmics limited by which demand has been reduced to 12.71 lakhs from 19.48 lakhs for AY 14-15 to which the Company has further filed an appeal.MoreLess
  At the filing before: Mainly due to additions u/s. 14A made in scrutiny assessment
• Tax disputeAdditional Commisioner of Commercial Tax, PanajiSince 31 May 2017
  Company is EOU unit, hence exempted for paying Entry tax on Imports. The commissioner had refused the entity's claim for the exemption. Mapusa Ward (CTO, ACCT) had raised the order against which the company had previously filed an Appeal to Appellate Authority (Panjim), who has forwarded the case to Mapusa Ward for Re-assessment and Mapusa Ward has not yet given the notice to GKB regarding the re-assessment. GKB is awaiting for the response from Mapusa Ward. As per the legal opinion, it was confirmed to us that the said liability should be set aside in appeal.No further hearing has taken place.MoreLess
  At the filing before: Entry tax levied on purchases claimed as exempted (Gross of deposit of Rs.5 Lakhs)
• Tax disputeAdditional Commisioner of Commercial Tax, PanajiSince 26 Jun 2020
  The demand raised is on account of non-production of Form 'C' in support of interstate sales. Management has submitted the respective forms before the Appellate Authority.The Company has filed an application under the settlement scheme 2023. Accordingly, out of total liability of Rs.19.27 lakhs, settlement benefit was availed by the Company of Rs. 12.25 lakhs and the balance amount which is aggregating to Rs. 5.49 lakhs after deducting the pre deposit will be paid by the Company in 9 equal installments and thereafter, this case shall stand closed.MoreLess
  At the filing before: Non Submission of C-Form at the time of Assessment due to non receipt of C forms from the parties, but the same were submitted later
• Tax disputeSecurities and Exchange Board of IndiaSince 29 Jul 2022
  As per the order, the Company was filing wrong information in quarterly shareholding pattern, which has led to violation of Section clause 35 of the erstwhile equity Listing agreement ( effective till 30-Nov-2015 ) and Regulation 31(1) of the SEBI LODR 2015. However there is condition in the order that the order will be applicable based on the hearing of SEBI vs Suzlon Energy Ltd, which is pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court Hence from the order it is evident that it is a conditional order based on the judgement of hearing of SEBI vs Suzlon Energy Ltd .MoreLess
  At the filing before: Violation of section clause 35 of the erstwhile equity Listing agreement ( effective till 30-Nov-2015 ) and Regulation 31(1) of the SEBI LODR 2015
• Tax disputeThe Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals)Since 20 Sep 2022
  Appeal filed was towards Notice under Section 250. Department had wrongly added Dividend twice, raising a tax liability. An amount of Rs. 1,98,35,796/- was credited to P and L account and again department added back in the total income. And there were another 2 matters i.e allowance claimed by entity towards Superannuation and leave encashment provision, which the department has added back amounting to Rs. 5.49 lakhs. The Company is awaiting a response from the authorities.MoreLess
  At the filing before: Wrong additions made to income

In the company's own words, from its latest governance filing.

The board is made up as the listing rules require

Yes

The board has a regular chairperson

Yes

The company has a risk management committee

No

The chair is related to the managing director

Yes

The filing has a part on fines and penalties

No

The filing has a part on tax disputes

Yes

There was a cyber security incident in the quarter

No

The company's own answers in its filing.