TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal (Court-V, New Delhi) is hereby affirmed. There is no merit in the Appeal. The Appeal is hereby dismissed. - Company Appeal (AT) No. 209 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 6-1-2023 - [Justice Anant Bijay Singh] Member (Judicial) And [Ms. Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Mr. Ashish Middha, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Kamal kant Jha, Sr. Panel Counsel for Govt. Of India for R-1. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Ms. Esha Kadian, Advocate for R-2- Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department JUDGMENT Justice Anant Bijay Singh; The present Appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, has been filed by the Appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 15.09.2020 passed by the National Company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an was allotted by to the company for the manufacturing of Steel Casting products (Annexure- -5 at page 81 to 115 of the Appeal Paper Book). The Company had set up a Unit of machinery which was financed by Punjab National Bank and had commenced its commercial production in the month of November, 1994. ii) Further case is that the Appellant company continued its manufacturing and trading activities till the end of September 1997, later on the company became sick and later on the company became sick and could not make payment of monthly electric energy bills of Rajasthan State Electricity Board and on 30.09.1997, the Electricity Board had disconnected the power supply of unit, thereby the manufacturing activities of the company had been st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation order of demand of Rs. 41,12,000/- dated 01.04.1999 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, could not be served upon appellant. In the year 2007, the management of the company came to know about that order and an appeal against the order was filed on 21.05.2008 before Custom, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) which was dismissed as time barred on 03.10.2008 (Annexure- 8 at page 128 to 129 of the Appeal Paper Book). iv) The second appeal was preferred against the order of the CESTAT before the Hon ble High Court of Rajasthan and the order passed by the CESTAT was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Tribunal on 13.05.2016 (Annexure- 9 at page 130 to 137 of the Appeal Paper Book). During the penden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Register maintained by the Registrar of Companies (RoC), NCT of Delhi and Haryana, after hearing the parties the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant. Hence this Appeal. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant during the course of argument and in his memo of Appeal along with written submissions submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the Appellant Company had filed refund claim for Rs. 3,01,00,000/- with the office of Sh. Rajthan Jat, Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods Service Office, Alwar, Rajasthan on 27.02.2019. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner ordered that the appellant company is entitled for the consequential refund claim of Rs. 1,79,20,377/- and interest of Rs. 50,50,910/. The total refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctors by invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Appellant company has been issued STK-1 on 21st March, 2017. Further, in terms of Section 248(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 public notices in form STK-5 were issued to 27291 Companies including the Appellant company by making publication in official Gazette on 13.06.2017 and these notices have also been places on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs. 6. It is further stated that in pursuant to sub-section (5) of Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Rule 9 of the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016, after expiry of time as mentioned in notice published/sent and non-receipt of any objection from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No return file - Nil 2018-19 No return file - Nil 2019-20 No return file - Nil The Appellant company has not filed its return of income since inception, thereby violating the mandatory provisions under Section 139 of the Income Tax, 1961. 8. After hearing the parties and having gone through the pleadings made on behalf of the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no illegality committed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority while passing the impugned order and also there is no cogent reason to interfere. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
