9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1597X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of Respondent/ROC striking the name of the appellant company from the register of companies. 2. Income Tax Department and State of Maharashtra through Ministry of Finance were impleaded as Respondent No. 2 and 3 in the appeal as there is tax liability against the appellant company. 3. The appellant company was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 02.03.2004 as a Private Company having its registered office at 5, Mahindra HSG Society, 121, Nagar Road, Pune, Maharashtra. The authorised share capital of the company is Rs. 5 lakhs divided into 50000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each. Registrar of Companies, (in brief ROC) Pune initiated the proceedings under Section 248 of the Companies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent could not be filed before Company Appeal (AT) No. 203 of 2019 ROC. It is further submitted the NCLT has not considered that the company has assets and liabilities. The company is holding the land at Village Karde Sub-District Taluka Shirur, Distt. Pune which was purchased vide Sale deed dated 16.7.2010. Now its value is about Rs. 2 crores. The appellant company has to pay income tax Rs. 62,070/- and sales tax amounting to Rs. 88336/-. Director Prakash Chablani has filed the affidavit and undertaking that if the name of company is restored to the register of companies then he will pay the government dues. It is also submitted that the directors of the company want to go for voluntary winding up of the company after clearing all creditors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t received any response then as per STK-7 Company Appeal (AT) No. 203 of 2019 notice dated 11.7.2017 the name of the appellant company was struck off from the register of companies. 11. Except the failure to file the financial statements and returns there is no complaint against the appellant company. Appellant has placed on record the report and financial statements from 2011-12 before the NCLT as well as before this Tribunal. We have gone through these reports and statements. From these it cannot be said that the appellant company is not carrying on any business since 2011-12. The appellant company is having assets and liabilities. In such circumstances we are of the view that the order passed by the NCLT is not sustainable in law. 12. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
