9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.116/252/ND/2018. 2. The name of the appellant company was struck off by the Registrar of Companies, after STK 5 Notice dated 13.6.2017 (Page 92) as the company had not been carrying on business or nor in operations for two immediately preceding financial years and the company had not obtained the status of dormant company under Section 455 of the Companies Act, 2013 (Act in brief). 3. The appellant filed the appeal before NCLT (Page 201) claiming that the company had two directors who were also the shareholders. The only shareholders and directors are stated to be Mr. Ajay Kanodia and his wife Ms Anjana Kanodia and they held 100% shareholding. The appellant before NCLT claimed that the appellant had not been served with Notice under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for the year ending 31.3.2012 and thereafter again there was no filing and according to ROC, STK-1 notice was duly issued to company on 21.3. 2017 and the copy of the same has been filed. According to the ROC the appellant did not respond to the notice and further steps to strike off the company were taken. According to ROC, later on public notice as per Section 248(5) was issued. 6. Learned counsel for appellant claims that in the reply filed before NCLT, copy of which has been filed with Diary No.8597, a copy of STK-1 Notice was not produced. Thus he wants the copy of the notice now filed to be ignored. According to him no proof of service has been filed. He relied on the reply of ROC in NCLT where the ROC stated that appellant may be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uyer is Kanodia Knit(P) Ltd. If the address of the seller is perused in these invoices it is 35, North Basti Harphool Singh, Sadar Thana Road, Delhi. This is the same address of the appellant, Kanodia Knits Pvt Ltd, also. How much weight such documents should be given is a foregone consequence. Some more purchase orders are shown which are at pages 171 to 176. These documents claim to be sale invoices between 22nd October, 2015 to 8th March, 2016. The vendors appears to be Shri Hosiery Udyog. These documents are for the financial year 2015-16 for which the assessment year would be 2016-17. The income tax returns at page 183 shows gross total income as Rs. 504/- We are not impressed by such documents to claim that the company was in business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd reflect the Total Income for the year 2016-17 as Rs. 500/- and the Tax with Interest payable as Rs. 172/- Total Income for the assessment year 2017-18 is Rs. 1470/- and the Tax with Interest payable is Rs. 439/- respectively. 14. Thus there are no convincing documents on record to establish that the Company was doing business or in actual operation when its name was struck from the Register of the Registrar of Companies. Therefore, it could be said that the Company was non-operational at the relevant period of striking off its name in June, 2017. 15. The Respondent ROC in its report has stated that it has no objection if the name of the Company is restored in the Register of Companies on the undertaking that the Company be directed ' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
