TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petitioners cannot avoid late fees for annual returns after restoration order already specified payment requirements</h1> <h3>M/s. Aryan Cargo Express Private Limited and M/s. Aryan Cargo And Express Logistics Private Limited Versus Union Of India & Anr.</h3> Delhi HC dismissed petitions seeking condonation of delay for filing e-forms regarding belated annual returns and balance sheets without additional fees. ... Condonation of delay on the part of Petitioners in filing of e-forms in respect of belated annual returns and balance sheets - permission to Petitioners to file e-forms in respect of belated annual returns and balance sheets without charging additional fees - HELD THAT:- On 11.02.2021, the Scheme dated 15.01.2021 was floated by the Union of India for condonation of delay for companies which has been restored on the Register of Companies between 01st December, 2020 and 31st December, 2020. Despite the fact that the Scheme for condonation of delay was already in existence, this Court did not extend the benefit of the Scheme to the Petitioners herein. Meaning thereby, this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only directed that the name of the Petitioners to be restored subject to the payment of requisite fees by the Petitioners which actually meant that the Petitioners had to pay the late fees. The Petitioners by way of the present writ petitions cannot now seek the relief which this Court had not given in the Order dated 11.02.2021. The Petitioners will have to pay the late fees in order to get the name of the Petitioners restored - Petition dismissed. Issues:1. Delay in filing e-forms for annual returns and balance sheets.2. Disqualification of directors for non-filing of returns.3. Revocation of disqualification and re-activation of DIN and DSC.4. Companies Fresh Start Scheme, 2020.5. Scheme for condonation of delay for restored companies.6. Petitioners seeking waiver of additional fees.7. Entitlement to benefit under the schemes based on court orders.Detailed Analysis:1. The petitioners filed writ petitions seeking direction to condone the delay in filing e-forms for belated annual returns and balance sheets without charging additional fees. The petitioners, a parent and subsidiary company, faced financial constraints leading to their names being struck off from the Registrar of Companies for non-filing of returns, resulting in director disqualification under the Companies Act. Subsequent writ petitions were filed for revoking disqualification and re-activating DIN and DSC.2. The court had earlier directed re-activation of DIN and DSC but held the petitioners liable for late filing penalties. The Companies Fresh Start Scheme, 2020, and a scheme for condonation of delay for restored companies were introduced by the respondents. The petitioners sought restoration of their names based on court orders but failed to comply with the deadline for filing annual returns and balance sheets.3. The petitioners argued that they were entitled to scheme benefits due to the court order permitting restoration of their names. However, the respondents contended that the schemes applied to companies with NCLT orders before the scheme expiration, not to the petitioners who obtained a court order after the scheme's expiry. The court analyzed the previous order and schemes, concluding that the petitioners must pay late fees for restoration.4. Despite the existence of a scheme for condonation of delay, the court did not extend its benefits to the petitioners. The court's order only required payment of requisite fees for restoration, not granting waiver of additional fees. The petitioners did not seek clarification on scheme benefits in their extension applications, leading to dismissal of their writ petitions seeking fee waiver.5. In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petitions as the petitioners were required to pay late fees for restoration, emphasizing that they cannot seek relief not granted in the previous court order. The petitioners' failure to seek clarification on scheme benefits precluded them from seeking waiver of additional fees.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
