TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners could be relieved of liability to file statutory returns for the relevant years on the ground that the company had never functioned and was defunct; (ii) Whether the pending prosecutions for default in filing statutory documents and returns were liable to be quashed.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioners could be relieved of liability to file statutory returns for the relevant years on the ground that the company had never functioned and was defunct.
Analysis: Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956 confers power on the Registrar to strike off the name of a defunct company; it does not impose a duty to do so at the request of the directors or shareholders. Until a company is wound up or its name is struck off the register, the statutory obligation to file returns and documents continues. The fact that the company never commenced business does not itself extinguish the statutory duty.
Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to be relieved of the liability to file the statutory returns.
Issue (ii): Whether the pending prosecutions for default in filing statutory documents and returns were liable to be quashed.
Analysis: Defaults under sections 159 to 162 and 220 of the Companies Act, 1956 are not excused by the company's non-functioning, and mens rea is excluded where the statute penalises mere failure to comply. The pendency of prosecutions also did not furnish a basis for this Court to grant relief under section 633(2). The violations were treated as technical, but that did not justify quashing the proceedings.
Conclusion: The pending prosecutions were not liable to be quashed.
Final Conclusion: The statutory obligations continued until lawful striking off or winding up, and the Court declined to interfere with the criminal proceedings, leaving it open to the Registrar to consider action under section 560 after the prosecutions were over.
Ratio Decidendi: A company's statutory duty to file returns continues until it is lawfully wound up or struck off the register, and non-functioning of the company does not by itself excuse default or warrant quashing prosecutions for failure to comply with mandatory company-law filing obligations.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
