Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + Tri Companies Law - 2020 (9) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 469 - Tri - Companies LawRestoration of name of respondent in the Registrar of Companies - time limitation - Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- Before passing the order of striking off the company from the Register of Companies, the ROC need to have make sufficient provision for the payment or discharge of its liabilities and obligations by the company within a reasonable time. It is quite evident from the contents of petition that respondent No.1 has failed to provide notice to the petitioner-Income Tax Department before taking any action under Section 248(5) of the Act and was not able to make any provision for payment or discharge of its liabilities and obligations. It is also pertinent to mention that the respondent No.2-company has filed Form STK-2 as prescribed under Section 248(2) of the Act and Rule 4(1) of the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016. Copy of Form STK-2 is found attached with the petition as Annexure A-4. It is observed that the name of Respondent No.2-company was struck off pursuant to filing of Form STK-2 before respondent No.1-ROC. It is also contended by the petitioner that after the search and seizure operation was conducted and opportunity was given by the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation) to respondent No.2 to produce the books of accounts/bills/vouchers etc., which were not declared in Schedule BA in the return of income filed and non-disclosure of account in the return of income, the source of credits in bank account remained unexplained and taxable under Section 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, but no explanation was given by the respondent No.2. It is also observed that allowing this petition would only enable the petitioner to conduct further proceedings under the Income Tax Act. Therefore, this petition deserves to be allowed. Thus, the ingredients provided for in 252(1) of the Act, are satisfied - the petition is allowed and it is just and equitable to restore the name of respondent No.2-company in the Register of Companies.
|