TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 436
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... register maintained by the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana. 2. As per the averments, M/S Ahuja Hospitality Private Limited was incorporated on 10.07.2012 by the Registrar of Companies, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Delhi and has its registered office at D-29, Basement, Fateh Nagar, New Tilak Nagar New Delhi-110018 having CIN No. U55100DL2012PTC238579. The business of the appellant company is to purchase & acquire land for establishment of hotels, holidays, resorts, villas, lodgings, stalls, garages, summerhouses, chateaus, castles, inns, hostels, road houses, motels, taverns, rest houses, guest houses and provide consultancy and carry on the business of hospitality, event management and related marketing services as owne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....haritable shows, Laser Shows, Sports events and all other connected activities in relation to business of hospitality in India and abroad. 3. A sweeping action was initiated by the ROC at the instance of MCA in striking off the names of several Companies who had not been carrying on any business or operation for a period of two immediately preceding financial years. The appellant had failed to file its E-forms pertaining to Audited Balance Sheet, Statement of Profit and Loss Account with the report of Auditors and Directors and Annual Returns since incorporation to the Registrar of Companies thereby giving rise to the surmise that the business of the company was not in operation. Consequently, its name was struck off by the Respondent fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....having with United Bank of India, Kolkata Account No. 1139050019868 in the name of Appellant Company for the period from 03.06.2019 to 07.01.2020 and 01.04.2017 to 16.01.2020 also placed on record showing operation in their account. 6. RoC submits in its reply cum affidavit dated 31.07.2020 that the appellant company had submitted its last Annual Return and Balance Sheet pertain to the financial year that ended on 31.03.2016 and no subsequent documents had been filed by the company with this office to obtain the status of a "Dormant Company" under Section 455 of the Companies Act, 2013. The office of Respondent issued the notice in the form of STK-1 dated 19.07.2019 intimating the company and directors of the company about the aforesaid ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... otherwise it is 'just' that the name of company be restored. ... This term "or otherwise" has been judiciously used by the legislature to arm the Tribunal to order restoration of a struck off company within the permissible time limit to take care of situations where it would be just and fair to restore company in the interest of company and other stakeholders. Such instances can be innumerable. However, this term "or otherwise" cannot be interpreted in a manner that makes room for arbitrary exercise of power by the Tribunal when there is specific finding that the Company has not been in operation or has not been carrying on business in consonance with the objects of the Company...." 8. He further submits that this order of the H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat apart from that, the appellant has also prayed to de-freeze the bank account of appellant company, which was frozen in pursuance of the issuance of impugned notice dated 13.11.2019. 14. Since, it is observed that in Company Application No. 142/2020 the composite prayers were made. Therefore, it was ordered to be placed along with the main appeal. 15. The ARoC submits that notice was duly served upon the appellant company, firstly, the notice in the form of STK-1 dated 19.07.2019 was sent to the company and its directors about the aforesaid default. Thereafter, again a public notice in the form of STK-5 dated 09.08.2019 was also published in the Newspapers but no reply was given by the appellant company or by its directors. 16. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecision of Hon'ble NCLAT in the case of M/s. Alliance Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Office of Registrar of Companies in WA, CA(AT) No. 20 of 2016 upon which the Ld. Counsel for the Income Tax Department has placed reliance and the same is quoted below:- "9.....The exercise of such power is properly regulated and depends upon satisfaction of the Tribunal that the Company at the time of its name being struck off was carrying on business or in operation or otherwise it is 'just' that the name of company be restored. ... This term "or otherwise" has been judiciously used by the legislature to arm the Tribunal to order restoration of a struck off company within the permissible time limit to take care of situations where it would....