https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90463 The NCLAT upheld the impugned order dated 02.04.2025, affirming it as a continuation of prior directions rather than a review or recall prohibited under Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal found no justification for conducting a Secretarial Audit given the absence of evidence that financial statements were ever filed with the ROC for the period 2015-2023. The appellant failed to produce any material disputing the PCS report, which confirmed that the company was non-operational and thus ineligible for such audit. The appellant's reliance on pleadings without judicial scrutiny or evidential support was rejected. Consequently, the order dispensing with the Secretarial Audit was deemed judicious and based on a proper appreciation of the record. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety for lack of merit. en-us Mon, 14 Jul 2025 08:36:33 +0530 Mon, 14 Jul 2025 08:36:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90463 The NCLAT upheld the impugned order dated 02.04.2025, affirming it as a continuation of prior directions rather than a review or recall prohibited under Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal found no justification for conducting a Secretarial Audit given the absence of evidence that financial statements were ever filed with the ROC for the period 2015-2023. The appellant failed to produce any material disputing the PCS report, which confirmed that the company was non-operational and thus ineligible for such audit. The appellant's reliance on pleadings without judicial scrutiny or evidential support was rejected. Consequently, the order dispensing with the Secretarial Audit was deemed judicious and based on a proper appreciation of the record. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety for lack of merit. Highlights Companies Law Mon, 14 Jul 2025 08:36:33 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90463