2025 (6) TMI 31 - AT - Companies Law

Seeking restoration of the name of the Appellant company in the register of Registrar of Companies - Section 252(1) read with Section 252(3) of the Companies Act 2013 - HELD THAT - The Learned Counsel for the Appellant though has shown two orders dated 08.12.2023 and 08.04.2024 which records the reply was filed by the Appellants herein and rather a date was given to the Income Tax Department to file its rejoinder but admittedly the presence of the Appellant s Counsel was not recorded in both these orders. In any case the reply filed by the Respondents No. 2 to 4 before the Ld. NCLT to the appeal filed by the department also perused wherein they had not denied assessment order and demand notice but claimed it being beyond limitation. Where the appellants failed to appear and did not dispute raising of such alleged demand there are no reason why impugned order be set aside. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Summary:The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) dismissed the appeal filed by M/s. Topline Comtech Pvt. Ltd. challenging the order of the NCLT dated 21.10.2024, which restored the company's name on the register under Section 252(1) read with Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The restoration was sought by the Income Tax Department due to outstanding tax demand of Rs. 6,69,910/- for assessment year 2012-13.Key legal reasoning includes:- The appellants failed to appear before the NCLT despite notices and paper publication; the impugned order noted non-appearance (para 8).- Although appellants filed replies on 08.12.2023 and 08.04.2024, their physical presence was not recorded, and they did not dispute the tax demand.- Respondents admitted the assessment order and demand notice but contended limitation bar.- The Tribunal upheld the presumption of correctness of the NCLT's order and rejected the appellants' claim that their presence was inadvertently not recorded.- The Tribunal concluded there was no reason to set aside the impugned order restoring the company's name, emphasizing the importance of facilitating tax recovery.The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and all pending applications disposed of.