M/S. Raxon Technologies Private ... vs Registrar Of Companies, Nct Of Delhi & ...

Company Appeal (AT) No. 418 of 2017 [Arising out of Order dated 7th December, 2017 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, New Delhi in CP 269(ND)/2017]

IN THE MATTER OF : M/s. Raxon Technologies Private Limited, Registered Office at : R-106, Gali No. 5, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi - 110 091. ... Appellant

Versus

Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana, IFCI Tower, 61, Nehru Place, New Delhi. ... Respondent Present: Shri Ritwiz Rishabh, Advocate for the Appellant.

Ms. Aparna Mudiam, Assistant Registrar of Companies.

JUDGEMENT

30.01.2018 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the

representative of the Registrar of Companies. Perused the impugned

order.

2. The impugned order shows that the appellant company, whose name

was struck-off, had filed appeal to National Company Law Tribunal, New

Delhi Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'NCLT') under Section 252(3) of the

Companies Act, 2013 impugning the decision of the Registrar of Companies

(ROC) to strike-off the name of the appellant company. It appears that the

matter was adjourned to 21st November, 2017 but subsequently the date was

changed to 10th November, 2017 and on that day, the NCLT issued notice to

Company Appeal (AT) No. 418 of 2017-30.01.2018 Page...2/- -2-

the Income Tax Department. When the matter came up on the adjourned

date, the learned counsel for the appellant stated before the NCLT that the

appellant is not liable to serve notice to the Income Tax Department or

invite their objections and that such steps were not envisaged under the

Companies Act.

3. The learned NCLT consequently dismissed the appeal. Thus, the

present appeal has been carried to this Tribunal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was

misunderstanding and the appellant is ready to get notice served on the

Income Tax Department. Learned counsel submits that the appellant had

tried to show to the learned NCLT that the appellant had filed proper returns

and thus the notice to the Income Tax Department was not necessary but the

submission was misunderstood. He submits that on 3rd January, 2018 also

the appellant had made submission before this Tribunal that they are ready

to serve notice on the Income Tax Department and their request is to restore

the appeal which was before the NCLT.

5. The document at Page 79 of the present appeal appears to be reply of

ROC which was filed in the NCLT. It appears from para 7 of that document

that the ROC had considered replies from the Company / Directors and

objection received from the Income Tax Department. Thus views of Income

Tax Department were a consideration.

Company Appeal (AT) No. 418 of 2017-30.01.2018 Page...3/- -3-

6. The impugned order shows that the NCLT was conscious of the

Government taking steps with reference to the Shell Companies. Thus, if

NCLT directed Notice to Income Tax Department, it should have been

accepted by Appellant.

7. We find that there was no justification for the appellant to take the

adamant stand as appearing from the impugned order. However, in order not

to deprive the appellant of an opportunity, we proceed to interfere with the

impugned order which has been passed but will saddle the appellant with

costs.

8. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned

order is set aside and appeal before NCLT is restored subject to the appellant

depositing costs of Rs. 1 Lakh to State in the NCLT. The costs may be

deposited on or before 5th March, 2018 in the NCLT in which case the appeal

to NCLT would stand restored. If the costs are not paid within time as

specified, the present appeal shall be treated as dismissed.

[Justice A.I.S. Cheema] Member (Judicial)

[Balvinder Singh] Member (Technical)

/ng/nn Company Appeal (AT) No. 418 of 2017-30.01.2018