9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company. The said certificate is disbelieved by holding that certified copy of the same was not filed. No attempts were made to get the genuineness of the certificate verified from issuing authority i.e. the office of the Registrar. No reasons are assigned as to why true/photocopy of certificate is to be disbelieved. Similarly, there is no iota of discussion whether the petitioner deserves any exemption for functioning in SEZ. These relevant aspects are required to be looked into. Conclusion - i) No attempts were made to get the genuineness of the certificate verified from issuing authority i.e. the office of the Registrar. No reasons are assigned as to why true/photocopy of certificate is to be disbelieved. ii) The matter remanded back to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED having duly passed the necessary resolution in terms of Section 21 of the Companies Act, 1956 and the approval of the Central Government signified in writing having been accorded thereto under Section 21 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Government of India, Department of Company Affairs, New Delhi, Notification No. G.S.R 507(E) dated 24/06/1985 vide SRN A82101445 dated 22/04/2010 the name of said company is this day changed to Open Text Technologies India Private Limited and this Certificate is issued pursuant to Section 23(1) of the said Act." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in furtherance of said order, another order dated 06.05.2010 (Annexure P.5) was issued by Department of Commerce, State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted to produce the same, the petitioner certainly would have produced the same. There was no reason to disbelieve the photo/true copy of change of fresh certificate of incorporation consequent upon the change of name dated 22.04.2010. 7. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department supported the impugned order and urge that the show-cause notice was issued on the basis of the Income Tax Return for the year 2016-2017, which was filed by M/s. Vignette Software Development India Private Ltd.,. The petitioner has not chosen to deal with this aspect while filing the reply to the show-cause notice. The petitioner has statutory remedy of appeal and can avail the same. Lastly, it is pointed out by learned Senior Standing Counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Registrar. No reasons are assigned as to why true/photocopy of certificate is to be disbelieved. Similarly, there is no iota of discussion whether the petitioner deserves any exemption for functioning in SEZ. These relevant aspects are required to be looked into. 12. Considering the aforesaid, we deem it proper to set aside the O.I.O. dated 24.03.2023, and remit the matter back to the same authority. The petitioner shall file his additional reply within fifteen days and produce true copy/certified copy of certificate issued by the Registrar of Companies regarding the change of name before such authority. It will be open for the petitioner to make necessary pleadings in additional reply regarding two different registration numbers as ment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
