Tribunal orders company name restoration despite non-filing reasons.

The Tribunal granted the appeal under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 for restoration of the company's name in the Register of Companies. Despite inadequate reasons for non-filing in 2012-2014, the Tribunal considered the Appellant's operational status and ordered restoration within 45 days, subject to compliance with fees. The ROC was directed to publish the order in the official Gazette and permitted further actions for any violations, emphasizing adherence to legal requirements for active status restoration.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Appeal under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 for restoration of the company's name in the Register of Companies.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations by the Appellant:
The Appellant company filed an appeal for restoration of its name in the Register of Companies after it was struck off by the Registrar of Companies (ROC), Bihar. The Appellant claimed that all annual filings were up to date except for the years 2012, 2013, and 2014 due to an employee's non-disclosure of compliance matters, leading to the company's unawareness of the issue.

2. ROC's Response:
The ROC Bihar stated that notices were issued to the Appellant regarding non-filing of annual returns, and subsequent actions were taken as per Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013, resulting in the company's name being struck off. The ROC expressed willingness to restore the company's name upon fulfillment of legal requirements and payment of additional fees.

3. Income Tax Authority's Reply:
The Income Tax Authority confirmed the Appellant's tax filings but noted missing returns for certain assessment years. No pending proceedings or outstanding demands were reported against the Appellant.

4. Tribunal's Findings:
The Tribunal acknowledged the Appellant's business operations at the time of the name strike-off but found the reason for non-filing in 2012-2014 inadequate. Lack of evidence of notice issuance by the ROC before striking off the name raised doubts about compliance with statutory requirements.

5. Tribunal's Decision:
Considering the circumstances and the Appellant's operational status, the Tribunal ordered the restoration of the company's name in the Register of Companies. The Appellant was directed to file pending documents within 45 days and comply with prescribed fees. The ROC was instructed to publish the order in the official Gazette and allowed further actions for any other violations.

In conclusion, the Tribunal granted the appeal, emphasizing compliance with legal requirements and restoration of the company's active status in the Register of Companies.

---