TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 961X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l returns would neither be just nor equitable. As per several decisions of various courts it should only be an exceptional circumstance that court should refuse restoration where the company has been struck off for its failure to file annual return as that would be excessive or inappropriate penalty for that oversight. The Registrar of Companies, the Respondent herein, is ordered to restore the original status of the Appellant Company as if the name of the Company has not been Struck off from the Registrar of Companies and take all consequential actions such as change of Company's status from 'Strike Off to 'Active' (for e-filing) etc. - Application allowed. - CA No. 141/ALD/2020 - - - Dated:- 23-12-2020 - Rajesh Day ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents and Annual Returns thus giving the status of a Dormant Company u/s 455(1) of Companies Act, 2013. iv. Appellant stated that the Company has been active Since incorporation and has been maintaining all the requisite statutory return but due to lack of proper professional guidance, oversight and inadvertent reasons, the same could not be filed with the register of Companies. Further stated that the company have bank accounts statement filed along with the application to show that the regular transactions of the company. 3. Upon notice being issued to the Respondent, RoC have filed their counter and stated that the name of the company was struck off after duly complying with the provisions of 248 of Companies Act, 2013 Read wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on any business or operations. 6. Further, it is averred by the Appellant Company, that, in the event of revival of the Company and restoration of the name of the Company in the Register maintained by the Registrar of Companies, the Appellant shall file all the outstanding statutory documents i.e. the Financial statements and Annual returns upto date. As regards the dispute raised by the Income Tax Authorities. in relation to the demand pending a mentioned by Appellant, it is to be observed that, Income Tax Authorities can impose penalty for the same in accordance with the provisions of Companies Act. 7. Heard the rival sides and perused the record. It is not in controversy that the Appellant Company incorporated on 06.04.2015 with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... returns would neither be just nor equitable. As per several decisions of various courts it should only be an exceptional circumstance that court should refuse restoration where the company has been struck off for its failure to file annual return as that would be excessive or inappropriate penalty for that oversight. 10. Accordingly, it is therefore the Registrar of Companies, the Respondent herein, is ordered to restore the original status of the Appellant Company as if the name of the Company has not been Struck off from the Registrar of Companies and take all consequential actions such as change of Company's status from 'Strike Off to 'Active' (for e-filing) etc. 11. The Appellant Company is directed to file all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
