AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 851
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gistered Office at Varuvinkalayil House, Velliparamb P. O., Koduvally, Kozhikode- 673 572, Kerala. 2. As per the Memorandum of Association, the main business of the Appellant Company is:- "To carry on the business of mining and crushing of Granites, Rocks and Production of M Sand." 3. The Appellant in the Appeal stated that the action of the Registrar of Companies under Section 248(1) and subsequent striking off of the Company under Section 248(5) of the Companies Act has happened on account of non-filing of financial statements and annual returns for the financial years ending on 31.03.2012, 31.03.2013, 31.03.2014, 31.03.2015 and 31.03.2016. The Appellant further stated that the Appellant Company after the incorporation, started acquiring the properties for the purpose of its business operation within one year. 4. The Appellant submitted that even though the Sister Concern M/s THIRUVAMPADY STONE CRUSHERS PRIVATE LIMITED initially started the main activity of the quarrying operations, the same was put to halt by the Regulatory Authorities for want of various regulatory compliances in the context of the Regulatory Norms. This was not an issue unique to the particular com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted by the ROC, in the instant case, on verification of the documents of the subject Company, it was found that the Company did not file its Balance Sheets and Annual Returns since incorporation i.e.2011. It is also stated that as per provisions of Section 137 of the Companies Act, 2013, Financial Statements for the period ending 31.03.2015 and 31.03.2016 were due to be filed on or before 30.10.2015 and 30.10.2016 respectively. Similarly, as per provisions of Section 92 of the Companies Act, 2013 Annual Returns for 2015 and 2016 were due for filing on or before 30.11.2015 and 30.11.2016 respectively. ROC further stated that the subject Company has violated the provisions of Sections 92/137 of the Companies Act, 2013 as the case may be. 9. In the Report of RoC, it is further stated that the submission of the Appellant that notice under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 was not given to the appellant is not correct and that as per the provisions of Section 248 read with relevant rules, notice had been issued to the company and its directors on 31.03.2017 giving 30 days' notice. It is also stated that due process has been meticulously followed for strike off action of the Comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ired. On 29.07.2020 the learned counsel for the Appellant while arguing the matter through video conferencing stated that he has produced some documents as A15 to A21 in CA/34/KOB/2020, which are as under: - i. Annexure A15: A Copy of the Consent Letter from KSPCB. ii. Annexure A16: Copy of the Sketch and latest possession certificate iii. Annexure A17: Copy of the Application dated 14.05.2019 submitted by the Appellant for Quarrying Permit before the Geology Department. iv. Annexure A18: Copy of the Letter of Indent issued by the Mining and Geology Department. v. Annexure A19: Copy of the application dated 15.10.2019 along with the available supporting documents before the Chief Controller of Explosives. vi. Annexure A20: Copy of the Sanction letter dated 22.10.2019 issued by Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives. vii. Annexure A21: Copy of the application dated 23.10.2019 before the District Magistrate, Calicut. 13. On-going through the above Memo, it appears that the documents sought vide this Bench order dated 20.07.2020 in CA/34/KOB/2020 have not been filed along with the Memo. 14. On 09.10.2020, the learned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dgment for the Assessment Year 2019-20. I have given careful consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the Appellant in regard to the production of NOC etc. 16. The provision pertaining to the restoration of the name of the Company as provided in Section 252 (3) is reproduced below: Section 252(3) : (3) If a company, or any member or creditor or workman thereof feels aggrieved by the company having its name struck off from the register of companies, the Tribunal on an application made by the company, member, creditor or workman before the expiry of twenty years from the publication in the Official Gazette of the notice under sub-section (5) of section 248 may, if satisfied that the company was, at the time of its name being struck off, carrying on business or in operation or otherwise it is just that the name of the company be restored to the register of companies, order the name of the company to be restored to the register of companies, and the Tribunal may, by the order, give such other directions and make such provisions as deemed just for placing the company and all other persons in the same position as nearly as may be as if the name....