TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lance sheet to show the company had revenue from operation for the immediate two preceding financial years when the name of the company was struck off by the RoC. Therefore, the appellant company has failed to produce any document to show that the appellant company had revenue from operation or carrying on business at the time when the name of the company was struck off by the Registrar of Companies. The action taken by the RoC under Section 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2016 need not be interfered - appeal dismissed. - Appeal No. 166/252/ND/2020 - - - Dated:- 9-8-2021 - Abni Ranjan Kumar Sinha, Member (J) And Kapal Kumar Vohra, Member (T) For Appearing Parties : Vipul Aggarwal and Sweety ORDER Abni Ranjan Kumar Sinha, Member (J) 1. This Appeal has been filed by M/s. Ahuja Hospitality Private Limited through Authorized Representative invoking the provisions of Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 for restoration of the name of the Appellant Company in the register maintained by the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi Haryana. 2. As per the averments, M/S Ahuja Hospitality Private Limited was incorporated on 10.07.2012 by the Registrar of Companies, Mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inancial years. The appellant had failed to file its E-forms pertaining to Audited Balance Sheet, Statement of Profit and Loss Account with the report of Auditors and Directors and Annual Returns since incorporation to the Registrar of Companies thereby giving rise to the surmise that the business of the company was not in operation. Consequently, its name was struck off by the Respondent from the Register of Companies under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 vide the order in form STK-7 dated 13.11.2019. The Appellant Company submitted that the Appellant Company or its directors have, till date, not received the notice No. RoCDelhi248(1)3603712019 dated 19.07.2019 and notice in Form STK--5 dated 09.08.2019 mentioned in the impugned notice dated 13.11.2019. Also, it had engaged a Chartered Accountancy Firm for filing of tax returns and conducting statutory compliances/filing before the Registrar of Companies and the Appellant Company reposed trust in the firm as the same firm was carrying out the filing for the other businesses of the directors of the Petitioner Company for several years. 4. The Company has filed the returns of the income with the Income Tax Authority latest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its report has referred to the decision of Hon'ble NCLAT in the case of M/s Alliance Commodities Pvt. Ltd Vs. Office of Registrar of Companies in WA, CA(AT) No. 20 of 2016 and submits that while discussing the power of the Tribunal under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, the Hon'ble NCLAT held that:- 9.....The exercise of such power is properly regulated and depends upon satisfaction of the Tribunal that the Company at the time of its name being struck off was carrying on business or in operation or otherwise it is 'just' that the name of company be restored. ... This term or otherwise has been judiciously used by the legislature to arm the Tribunal to order restoration of a struck off company within the permissible time limit to take care of situations where it would be just and fair to restore company in the interest of company and other stakeholders. Such instances can be innumerable. However, this term or otherwise cannot be interpreted in a manner that makes room for arbitrary exercise of power by the Tribunal when there is specific finding that the Company has not been in operation or has not been carrying on business in consonance with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company vide notice in the form of STK-7 dated 29.10.2019 on the ground that the company was not carrying on any operation for the immediate two preceding financial years. 17. Ld. Counsel for the Income Tax Department has also contended the same and placed reliance upon the decision referred to supra. 18. In the light of submissions, now, we consider the prayer of the appellant and it is observed that the specific averments have been made by the RoC in its reply stating the dates, when the notices were sent upon the appellant company and its directors but appellant company and its directors failed to submit any reply. 19. Hence, we find no force in the contention raised by the Ld. Counsel for appellant that no notice was sent/served upon the appellant company before the date, when the name of company was struck off by the RoC. 20. It is further seen that the appellant has failed to produce the audited balance sheet to show the company had revenue from operation for the immediate two preceding financial years when the name of the company was struck off by the RoC. Therefore, we are of the considered view, the appellant company has failed to produce any document to show t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
