9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1798X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent ROC by virtue of the said order dated 29.82011 has struck the name of M/S Nexus Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (for brevity) the Company, bearing CIN No.U51109DL2007PTC159451 and the said Company was having PAN No.AACCN5460G. The striking off, it is averred in the Appeal has arisen based on the Company filing the application availing Fast Track Exit Mode, 2011 Scheme announced by the Central Government vide General Circular No.36/2011 dated 07.06.2011. According to the Appellant Income Tax authority, the assessee has not filed the return of its income for the year 2010-11 even though the assessee Company has received an amount of and that Ld. Assessing Officer has reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment based on F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10.05.2014 passed by the Registrar of Companies who has removed the name of the Assessee company narnely M/S. New Ways Steels Private Limited which has caused serious prejudice to the interests of the revenue. The respondents Registrar of Companies as well as M/S. New Ways Steels Private Limited have been served. The Registrar of Companies has filed its reply on 20.12.2017. The matter came up for hearing yesterday i.e. 20.12.2017 when we asked the Registrar of Companies to produce the original record concerning this case and the process Which has been followed for striking off the names of thousands of companies by issuing one order. The name of the M/S. New Ways Steels Private Limited from the register of the Registrar of Companies has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the original record concerning this matter has not been produced. We are unable to appreciate the stance Of the Registrar of Companies by not producing the record and the voluntary exist scheme itself. In view of the above we find that prima-face the affidavit filed by the erstwhile Directors Of M/S. New Ways Steels Private Limited is patently false as the petitioner-revenue has pointed out that there has been tax demand of Rs. 1,36,93,770/-which is outstanding as on date against the assessee including the interest calculated till 25.10.2017. According to the order dated 30.12.2009 the Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 13 (2), New Delhi framed the assessment and held that a sum of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- alleged to have been received by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urposes of issuance of demand by the Income Tax Department. The aforesaid course is being adopted as the erstwhile Directors of the company are not present. Let fresh notices be issued to the erstwhile Directors of the company returnable on 19.02.2018. On the adjourned date the original record concerning this case shall be produced by the Registrar of Company. If the original record is not produced then the Registrar of Companies shall remain present in the Court. Notices be given dasti. A copy of the order be given dasti under the signatures of the Bench officer. List for further consideration on 19.02.2018". 3. However, on facts there seems to be a significant difference between the one on hand and the order cited b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rior to its repeal stood as under: If a company, or any member or creditor thereof, feels aggrieved by the company having been struck off the register, the (Tribunal], on an application made by the company, member or creditor before the expiry of twenty years from the publication in the Official Gazette of the notice aforesaid, may, if satisfied that the company was, at the time of the striking off, carrying on business or in operation or otherwise that it is just that the company be restored to the register, order the name Of the company to be restored to the register ; and the [Tribunal] may, by the order, give such directions and make such provisions as seem just for placing the company and all other persons in the&n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tax Department can fall at best under the category of Creditor, provided tax or any other demand or sum is due under the Act from the Company which had been struck off. In the order cited as above of the Hon'ble Principal Bench, NCLT by the Ld. Senior Standing Counsel it is seen that at the time of striking off, a demand for tax was in place, however pending before the appellate authorities in appeal. In the instant case no such demand has crystallized and nothing has also been specified as due in the appeal. 7. In the absence of any demand having been raised or even the estimate of tax that may be due having also not been disclosed any where in the appeal, we are unable to appreciate, merely based upon mere reasons to believe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
