TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 710
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The facts stated in the present appeal are that the respondents published a notice dated 29th October, 2019 under section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 (for short 'Act') striking off the names of 8114 companies from the Register of Companies (for short 'RoC') including that of the appellant for non-filing of returns. Subsequently, a scheme called "Companies Fresh Start Scheme, 2020" (for short 'CFSS 2020') was notified by the respondents on 30th March, 2020 for facilitating the companies to make a fresh start on a clean slate by filing belated documents without payment of additional fees. The Scheme was valid from 1st April, 2020 to 30th September, 2020. The Scheme was not applicable to those companies against whom a notice under section 248 of the Act had already been initiated. 3. The appellant filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) 5803/2020 challenging the notification dated 29th October, 2019 seeking restoration of its name in the RoC. While that writ petition was pending, the respondents floated another Scheme dated 15th January, 2021 called "Scheme for Condonation of Delay for Companies restored on the Register of Companies between 01 December 2020 and 31 December 2020 unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that order directed that the name of the appellant be restored subject to the appellant herein filing its annual return and balance sheet alongwith the requisite fees in accordance with law within a period of three months. According to learned counsel "requisite fees in accordance with law" would mean the actual prescribed fees payable and not the additional fees charged as penalty. He states that this construction of the direction was not taken into consideration in the impugned judgment. 7. He refers to the extension of 'CFSS 2020' by letter/notification dated 15th January, 2021 particularly to para 2 to submit that the reference to "NCLT" be read as "the Delhi High Court", so as to entitle the appellant the benefit of the exemption under the "extended CFSS 2020". He submits that since the name of the appellant was not struck off from the RoC by virtue of a speaking order under section 248 of the Act, the appellant could not file its appeal before the NCLT and instead had filed the W.P.(C) 5803/2020. Merely because the appellant had no choice other than to file a writ petition challenging the striking of its name from the RoC instead of approaching the NCLT, cannot be a reason t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me of 8114 companies including the present appellant. She states that nothing prevented or prohibited the appellant from challenging the same before the NCLT. 11. She also refers to the judgment in the case of Mukut Pathak and Others vs. Union of India & Others, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10868, particularly to para 115 of the said judgment to submit that the learned Single Judge, even in that matter, had clarified that the petitioners therein would continue to be liable to pay penalties as prescribed under the Act. By referring to para 3 of the said judgment, she submits that it was not only the Directors of those companies but the companies themselves who were also party to the aforesaid judgment. According to her, the direction in para 115 would also apply to the appellant. 12. Learned counsel for respondent-UOI also refers to the judgment dated 11th February, 2021 in W.P.(C) 5803/2020 to submit that the restoration of the name of the appellant in the RoC was directed on the said date, whereas the "extended CFSS 2020" was applicable only to the orders of restoration passed by NCLT with effect from 1st December, 2020 to 31st December, 2020. According to her, by the time the name of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent also on the facts of each case. The question whether party falls in the notification or in the exemption clause, has to be strictly construed and when once the ambiguity or doubt is resolved by interpreting the applicability of exemption clause strictly, the Court may construe the notification by giving full play bestowing wider and liberal construction. The Courts are to examine as to whether the party seeking such benefit under such exemption notification is found to be entitled to such benefits or not. In case, a party is found to be eligible within the conditions prescribed, the notification is to be construed liberally. In contradistinction thereto, if a party is found to be ineligible as per the conditions prescribed, the notification is to be construed strictly. All that is to be seen is the legislative intent or the economic justification behind such notification. It would be apposite to refer to the judgement of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Wood Papers Ltd., (1990) 4 SCC 256 wherein it was held as under:- "4. Entitlement of exemption depends on construction of the expression "any factory commencing production" used in the Table extracted above. Literally e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding annual statutory documents on the MCA-21 Registry which were entitled to apply for benefits under CFSS 2020. Sub clause (ix) (a) of clause 6 of CFSS 2020 reads as under:- "(ix) Scheme not to apply in certain cases - This scheme shall not apply:- a. to companies against which action for final notice for striking off the name u/s 248 of the Act (previously section 560 of Companies Act, 1956) has already been initiated by the Designated authority." 20. It is not denied by the appellant that action under section 248 of the Act was already notified vide the notification dated 29th October, 2019 striking off the name of the appellant from RoC. Since the appellant, as on that date, fell within the excepted category, it is apparent that CFSS 2020 dated 30th March, 2020 is not applicable to the appellant. 21. So far as the "extended CFSS 2020" dated 15th January, 2021 is concerned, the same is applicable only to those companies in respect of whom the NCLT, in appeals filed under section 252 of the Act, has passed orders for restoration of the names and disposed of those appeals between 1st December, 2020 and 31st December, 2020. It is observed that in respect of those Companies a....