Court orders restoration of respondent company's name despite tax arrears and objections

The court granted the petitioner's application for restoration of the respondent company's name to the Register of Registrar of Companies under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent company faced tax arrears and had its name struck off, impeding pending appeals and recovery proceedings. Despite objections and cost suggestions from respondent No. 1, the court, considering the relevant legal provisions, allowed the restoration, citing the petitioner's lack of notice due to address issues.

---

---

Issues:
1. Restoration of the name of the Company to the Register of the Registrar of Companies under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Allegations of non-filing of returns, tax arrears, and recovery proceedings under Section 222 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Appeals pending in court related to recovery of tax arrears and attachment of property.
4. Striking off the name of the company from the Register of Registrar of Companies under Section 560(5) of the Act, 1956.
5. Petition for restoration of the name of the company by the petitioner as a creditor under Section 560(6) of the Act, 1956.
6. Court orders regarding restoration of the company's name and objections raised by respondent No. 1.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, the Income Tax department, filed a petition under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking restoration of the respondent company's name to the Register of the Registrar of Companies. The respondent company had ceased filing tax returns after the assessment year 1988-1989, leading to a substantial tax demand of &8377;1,62,57,268. The Tax Recovery Officer initiated recovery proceedings under Section 222 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and three appeals were pending in court concerning the recovery of tax arrears from the company.

2. The respondent company's name was struck off from the Register of Registrar of Companies, hindering the petitioner's ability to serve notices for the pending appeals. The petitioner, falling within the definition of creditors under Section 560(6) of the Act, 1956, filed the application to restore the company's name for tax recovery and pursuing the pending appeals in court. The court noted that the petitioner had not received notices of the company's name being struck off due to incomplete address issues.

3. Following court orders, which allowed the deletion of the company's name from the memo of parties, the petitioner's counsel highlighted respondent No. 1's reply expressing no objection to restoring the company's name. However, respondent No. 1 referred to Rule 94 of the Companies (Court) Rule 1959, suggesting imposing costs on the petitioner for restoration. The court, after considering Section 560(6) of the Act, 1956 and respondent No. 1's reply, allowed the petition and ordered the restoration of the respondent company's name in the Register of Registrar of Companies.

---