max estates disclosed on July 28, 2026, that its subsidiary, Pharmax Corporation Limited, has received a show cause notice from the Department of Trade and Taxes, Government of NCT of Delhi. The notice proposes a total demand of ₹5,90,00,108, comprising tax, interest, and penalty, related to alleged excess or ineligible input tax credit for the financial year 2022-23. The matter is currently at the preliminary stage, with no final order passed, though the company states there is no immediate impact on operations.

The disclosure was made in compliance with Regulation 30 of the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015, read with SEBI Master Circular No. HO/49/14/14(7)2025-CFD-POD2/1/3762/2026 dated July 11, 2023, last updated on January 30, 2026. The event occurred on July 28, 2026, at 17:18 hrs (IST). The notice was issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Breakdown of Proposed Demand

The show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01, dated July 27, 2026, breaks down the proposed liability as follows:

The opposing party is the Office of the Assistant Commissioner / GSTO, New Delhi. The dispute centers on input tax credits claimed by Pharmax Corporation Limited during FY23.

Company Response and Next Steps

Pharmax Corporation Limited is currently reviewing the notice and will file a reply in accordance with applicable laws. The company emphasized that the final financial impact, if any, will depend on the outcome of the adjudication proceedings. As of the filing date, no final demand or order has been passed by the authorities. Management confirmed that the notice does not affect the ongoing operations or other activities of either Pharmax Corporation Limited or Max Estates Limited at this stage. The company intends to keep stakeholders informed of any material developments.

Max Estates shareholders have approved the remuneration package for Vice-Chairman and Managing Director Sahil Vachani and appointed Jillian Leigh Moo-Young as a Non-Executive, Non-Independent Director. The approvals were secured through a postal ballot process that concluded on July 25, 2026, with the scrutinizer’s report filed on July 27, 2026. The resolutions passed under Regulation 44 of the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015, reflect strong promoter backing, while public institutional investors showed mixed support on the remuneration agenda.

The postal ballot notice was dispatched on May 22, 2026, seeking approval for two key resolutions. The first, a special resolution, authorized the payment of remuneration to Sahil Vachani (DIN: 00761695) for the remaining period of his current tenure. The second, an ordinary resolution, proposed the appointment of Jillian Leigh Moo-Young (DIN: 10545257) to the Board. Sanjay Grover & Associates was appointed as the scrutinizer for the process, which utilized the National Securities Depository Limited (NSDL) remote e-voting platform. The voting window opened on June 26, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. IST and closed on July 25, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. IST.

As of the cut-off date of June 19, 2026, the company had 30,594 shareholders holding a total paid-up capital of ₹1,63,48,76,260, divided into 16,34,87,626 equity shares of ₹10 each. A total of 9,29,97,780 valid votes were cast, representing approximately 56.88% of the outstanding shares. No invalid votes were recorded during the process.

Voting Results Breakdown

The special resolution regarding Sahil Vachani’s remuneration received 86.71% support in terms of votes polled. While promoters voted unanimously in favor, public institutional investors showed significant dissent, with only 40.43% of their polled votes supporting the resolution. Public non-institutional investors, however, supported the measure with 99.89% assent.

The ordinary resolution for Jillian Leigh Moo-Young’s appointment garnered overwhelming support, passing with 98.47% of votes in favor. Promoters again voted unanimously for her appointment. Public institutional investors supported the resolution with 93.14% assent, while public non-institutional investors backed it with 99.94% support. The dissenting votes totaled just 14,23,855 shares.

What the Numbers Show

The divergence in voting patterns between the two resolutions highlights distinct shareholder sentiments regarding executive compensation versus board composition. The remuneration resolution faced notable resistance from public institutional investors, who cast 59.57% of their polled votes against it. This contrasts sharply with the near-unanimous support for Ms. Moo-Young’s appointment across all shareholder categories. The high level of promoter participation, with 95.07% of their holdings voted, ensured the passage of the remuneration resolution despite institutional dissent. This suggests that while strategic board additions are widely accepted, specific compensation structures may require more detailed justification to align with institutional investor expectations.