Court upholds Table of Fee under Registration of Offices & Fees Rules 2014, rejects challenge to old fee structure.

The Court dismissed the petition challenging the Table of Fee under Registration of Offices and Fees Rules, 2014, ruling in favor of the respondents. The petitioner's argument that they should be liable to pay fees under the old Companies Act/Rules was rejected. The Court held that the petitioner should pay fees as per the new fee structure under the Rules of 2014, applicable at the time of filing the documents. The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with statutory requirements within prescribed timelines and awarded no costs to either party.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to Table of Fee under Registration of Offices and Fees Rules, 2014 as ultra vires and unconstitutional, Acceptance of Form SH-7 with old fee structure, Application of fee under old Companies Act/Rules vs. new fee structure under Rules of 2014.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ of Certiorari to set aside a portion of the Table of Fee under Registration of Offices and Fees Rules, 2014, claiming it to be ultra vires and unconstitutional. The petitioner, a company incorporated in 1989, increased its authorized share capital in 2010, 2012, and 2013 without filing Form 5 with the respondent. The petitioner argued that the new fee structure under the Rules of 2014 should not apply to them, as the non-filing of Form 5 was unintentional and occurred due to global circumstances and financial constraints.

2. The petitioner contended that they should be liable to pay the fee under the old Companies Act/Rules, not the new fee introduced in 2014. They argued that the fee for belated filing should be calculated based on the old fee structure applicable at the time of the offense. The petitioner cited various judgments to support their argument, emphasizing that no person can be penalized under a law that was not in force at the time of the offense.

3. The respondents, on the other hand, stated that the petitioner failed to file the necessary forms for the increased authorized share capital within the stipulated time under the Companies Act, 1956. They highlighted that the Rules of 2014 were implemented after due deliberations and that the petitioner should have filed the required forms in 2010, 2012, and 2013 when Form 5 was in force. The respondents argued that the petitioner admitted fault for not filing the forms within the prescribed time limit.

4. The Court observed that the petitioner only filed the required form in 2014 after the Rules of 2014 were framed. Therefore, the fee payable by the petitioner should be as per the new fee structure under the Rules of 2014, applicable at the time of filing the documents. The Court agreed with the respondents' stand that the fee in force at the time of actual filing of the forms should be paid. The judgments cited by the petitioner were deemed irrelevant to the present case.

5. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition, stating that there was no merit in the petitioner's arguments. The costs were not awarded to any party, and a related application was dismissed as infructuous. The judgment upheld the application of the new fee structure under the Rules of 2014 for the petitioner's delayed filings, emphasizing the importance of complying with the statutory requirements within the prescribed timelines.

---