9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 375 - Tri - Companies LawRestoration of name of Respondent in the Register of Companies maintained by the office of ROC - section 252(3) of the Companies Act - HELD THAT - While going through the section 252(3) of the Companies Act, it is found that the instant provision is made when the company is struck of voluntarily on the behest of the Promoter(s)/Director(s), whereas, section 252(1) of the Companies Act, provides that, when the company is struck of by the Registrar of Companies on the failure in filing of statutory returns by the Company - the instant application would not lie under section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013; rather, it would lie under section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013. Considering the public interest, and to protect the legitimate interest of revenue, the name of the Respondent Company requires to be restored in the Register of Companies maintained by the ROC, Ahmedabad so as to enable the Appellant (Income Tax Department) to proceed further as per rules and in accordance with law - it would be just and equitable to restore the name of the Company M/s. Bindal Impex Pvt. Ltd. in the register maintained by ROC, Ahmedabad, Gujarat as the same is not barred by any law. The present appeal is allowed to the extent of revival of the Company and the ROC Gujarat, Ahmedabad is hereby directed to restore the name of Company viz. M/s. Bindal Impex Pvt. Ltd. in the Registrar of Companies.
Issues:
1. Restoration of company name in Register of Companies by Tribunal under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. Detailed Analysis: The Department of Income Tax filed a Company Appeal seeking restoration of the name of a company struck off by the Registrar of Companies (ROC). The appeal was filed under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, based on a circular directing such actions in cases where companies' names are struck off by the ROC. The Income Tax Department issued a notice to the company under the Income Tax Act, but no response was received. The appeal was filed within the time limit to protect the revenue's legitimate interest. The Tribunal noted that the appeal should have been filed under Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, instead of Section 252(3), as the company was struck off by the ROC. However, citing a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal decided to treat the application under Section 252(1). The Tribunal emphasized the need to restore the company's name in the Register of Companies to protect public interest and revenue's legitimate interest. The Tribunal found it just and equitable to allow the appeal and directed the ROC to restore the company's name in the register. The restoration was subject to the publication of notices in newspapers and the Official Gazette. The company was instructed to comply with all statutory requirements. The time taken for the appeal's disposal was exempted for initiating Income Tax or legal proceedings against the company. The order was to be communicated to the ROC and the company. Ultimately, the Company Appeal was allowed, and the matter was disposed of by the Tribunal.
|
