2020 (5) TMI 701 - Tri - Companies Law

Seeking restoration of name of the company in the register of ROC - Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT - Upon perusal of the Income Tax acknowledgement which is filed along with the petition, would prove the fact that eventhough the Company has been active during the period under scrutiny filing returns with Income Tax, however had failed to file the same with the Respondent of any statutory retunes. Further from the documents submitted by the Appellant, it is evident upon its bare perusal which would prove that the company was not doing any business and remains to be dormant - after conscientious perusal of the documents filed by the Applicant Company, this Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant Company is not carrying on its business during the time when the Company was struck off from the Register maintained by the Respondent and also no cogent reasons or any documents are produced before this Tribunal in order to substantiate that the Company was carrying on its business or it is just to revive/restore the name of the Company to the Register as maintained by the Respondent. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Application under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 for restoration of company name struck off by Respondent under Section 248.

Analysis:
1. The Applicant Company filed an Application under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013, seeking restoration of its name after being struck off by the Respondent under Section 248. The Applicant Company was incorporated in 1978 with objectives related to cotton, wool, jute, etc. The Respondent issued notices for striking off in 2018, leading to the company's name being removed from the Register of Companies.

2. The Applicant Company, through its counsel, argued that challenges such as manpower shortage and electricity discontinuity hindered business operations. They cited lack of professional guidance for non-filing of annual returns and administrative lapses. The company also highlighted pending cases before various forums and sought restoration under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.

3. The Respondent, ROC Coimbatore, reported default in statutory filings since 2015, leading to the issuance of notices under Section 248(1) in 2018. After due procedure, the company was struck off and the action was published in the Gazette of India. The Applicant submitted documents like bank statements, annual returns, and income tax acknowledgments to support their plea for restoration.

4. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant Company ceased business activities before being struck off and failed to file balance sheets since incorporation. Despite active income tax filings, statutory returns were neglected. Details of tax payments from 2013-14 onwards were provided, showing no income or tax paid. The Tribunal found no evidence to justify restoration, leading to the dismissal of the Application without costs.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of business operations by the Applicant Company at the time of striking off and the absence of substantial reasons or evidence supporting the restoration of the company's name in the Register maintained by the Respondent. The dismissal of the Application was made in light of these findings.